Posted on 07/01/2005 7:30:45 PM PDT by RWR8189
With a Republican Senate, President Bush has the chance to succeed where Reagan failed by getting a conservative constitutionalist confirmed to the Supreme Court.
ON OCTOBER 23, 1987--a day that lives in conservative infamy--Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by a Democratic Senate. Now, 18 years later, George W. Bush has the chance to reverse this defeat, and to begin to fulfill what has always been one of the core themes of modern American conservatism: the relinking of constitutional law and constitutional jurisprudence to the Constitution.
The restoration of constitutional government has been the one area in which modern conservatism has had the least success. From Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, conservative economic policies have been (more or less) pursued, and, when pursued, have been vindicated. From Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, conservative foreign policies based on American strength and American principles have been--when pursued--remarkably successful. One might even say that, in both economics and foreign policy, the degree of conservative success has been far greater than anyone would have imagined in 1980.
But in the area of constitutionalism, conservative goals have been thwarted, and the key moment of failure, from which conservative constitutionalism has never recovered, was the Bork defeat in 1987. For the last 18 years constitutional jurisprudence has continued to drift away from a sound constitutionalism based on the written Constitution and a proper deference to popular self-government in many areas of public life. Bork's defeat was both a cause and a symbol of this continued downward drift. Now, with one of the two swing votes on the Supreme Court stepping down, George W. Bush has a chance to begin to make constitutional history, as he is certainly attempting to do in foreign policy and, to a lesser degree, in economic policy.
There are two pieces of good news to keep in mind as President Bush ponders his choice. The first is that, by contrast with the situation in 1987, the Senate has a Republican majority. The second is that President Bush can choose from among many, many well-qualified conservative constitutionalists. Although President Bush is understandably fond of and loyal to his attorney general Alberto Gonzales, it's simply a fact that Gonzales does not have the stature of several other possible candidates. I now believe that, though tempted, President Bush will leave his attorney general in his current office.
The president has the luxury of choosing among such candidates as Michael McConnell, probably the leading constitutional thinker of his generation, now serving on the 10th Circuit; J. Michael Luttig, who has served with great distinction for 14 years on the 4th Circuit; the remarkable Janice Rogers Brown, with almost a decade on the California Supreme Court and a recent confirmation to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; as well as other federal and state supreme court judges--some of whom happen to be women (if that matters), and all of whom have strong credentials.
Most of the Democrats will fight any strong candidate. It won't matter if that candidate doesn't have a paper trail, because any nominee will have to make his or her general manner of constitutional thinking clear to the Senate--which thinking will almost inevitably provoke opposition from the left. But such opposition, however vociferous the rhetoric, will not be unstoppable. Indeed, looking at the current Senate, I do not believe that there are 40 Democratic votes to sustain a filibuster against an objectively well -qualified conservative nominee. And in any case a filibuster would be very difficult for the Democrats to defend.
George W. Bush's has been a Reaganite presidency in the areas of foreign and economic policy. He has impressively adjusted Reaganite principles to deal with today's challenges. Now he has the chance to once again follow Reagan's lead by nominating a jurist as impressive as Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. And now he has the chance to surpass Reagan--by getting that nominee confirmed.
William Kristol is the editor of The Weekly Standard.
Then you have both a carrot and a stick...the longer they take to approve the nomination, the more damage Bork can do.
For the P.C. Crowd, which unfortunately includes Bush, this is a designated "chick seat..."
Sheeeit, I hadn't thought of that. But nobody knows Brown's view on gun rights. I'd still prefer Luttig. Go with the known conservative. I love Brown's quotes, and she'd be a great chief justice. I just want to see her rule on the D.C. gun laws first.
Ping to 41.
Ping to 41.
Why did Luttig strike down Virginia's partial birth abortion ban?
Ignore the odds for a moment and speculate what affect a
Brown nomination would have on the Court. I think it would release Thomas from his self-imposed embattlement. With, say, Scalia heading the court and young turks Brown and Thomas, both battle scarred and not in the least beholden to to their detractors, I think you would see a flowering of
intellectual conservative jurisprudence. I have read what I could of their opinions and, separately, they are solid and cautious. Together, I see an entirely different dynamic.
I heard him, too, Jeff.
What a creep.
Of course, Warner said the same thing yesterday on the floor of the Senate.
I'm confused. "come out swinging for" (in my mind), means you are in favor of something. I'm asking if it means the opposite to you because, Spector was actively opposed to both Bork and Thomas.
Specter scuttled the Bork nomination but he supported Thomas. He was not completely enthused about Thomas but he turned his legendary nastiness on Anita Hill. He did with venom what should have been done with finess if any other Republicans had a brain or a spine. As hard as it is to say, he did as much or more than anyone to get Thomas through.
Really great Kristol column, I'm glad he came out with it so quickly, and he doesn't even gloat about his bold prediction last week saying O'Connor would resign, not Rhenquist.
Kristol's guesses as to who Bush might nominate echo most of the other talking heads, except Kristol guesses Bush will not nominate Gonzales. I agree. There was an AP article listing the people attending a meeting yesterday with the President, on the selection process. Gonzales was in the meeting, and I don't think he would be in on the selection process if he were one of the candidates.
thank you mucho!!! You are right. I hate it when I post incorrect information, and I appreciate it being corrrected.
http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS2-99MQC/2-11-1999.1.html
From what I understand of O'Connor's resignation, it does not become official until her successor is confirmed by the Senate.
So there could be no recess appointment, since there is technically no vacancy.
I think the President is saving Gonzales for a vacancy caused by Stevens or Ginsburg. My guess is that they would be the first libs to go. We don't hear much about Stevens' health, but I imagine the MSM would rather talk about Rehnquist's health. They fear something happening to Stevens.
I like it!
read tonight BUMP
Now THAT would bring the rabid moonbats out of their caves... Personally I think that we are going to be stuck with Gonzales.
This sounds GREAT. I hope they do it.
I take it back.
I've been agitating for Luttig but I forgot a seminal decision he made that I frankly found appalling: Ruling aginst Paladin Press in their "Hitman" case.
I'd rather gamble on Brown than have someone I think is unwilling to defend the first amendment at its fringe on the SCOTUS.
Ideally, of course, Alex Kozinski would be the best choice I've seen. And he is a federal judge right now.
Her brief letter does indeed say "upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor." Curses. Leave it to O'Connor to do her best to keep the SCOTUS powerful and help the leftists block any possible evasions of the RINO Senate. Her pisspoor, middling logic will not be missed.
A personal favorite: affirmative action--Constitutional now, but not in 25 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.