Replies

I want Michael McConnell next. He is a strict constructionist, but he is a part of academia and has the support of some liberal professors. He once called Roe "embarassing to anyone who takes constitutional law seriously." "Michael McConnell would be my choice," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. He is rumored to be Rehnquist's replacement. McConnell is 50 years old.

http://www.law.utah.edu/faculty/bios/mcconnellm.html

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1117789517125

Yes, I would have loved anyone from the A Team:

Luttig
McConnel
Owens
Brown
Jones
or Olson.

These people are clearly originalist/textualists. They are clearly "in the mold" of Bushs promise of a Scalia or Thomas.

However, the appointment of Roberts is now going to make that more difficult. First, Bush will probably be less powerful six months from now (or after the elections) - RINOs will be too timid near the elections to support anyone from the A team OR the democrats may gain a seat or two.

Second, Roberts is being defended by the GOP will the wrong justifications - i.e. he is not a Bork, 'there is not proof he would overturn Roe v. Wade', etc. We are establishing Roberts as acceptable PRECISLY because he is not a confirmed originalist/textualist. Therefore, any future nomination will be attacked as an extremest.

Third, we have used up our most credible B player. If Bush picks an A team member, and we lose, we have even less safe "stealth" backups.

First we blew the filibuster.
Second we blew this.

If Roberts does not live up to his billing of "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas", Bush Jr. will only be a little less disappointing than Bush Sr.

I looked more closly at McConnell. Wow, he is just right. He has academic support, nice guy, but read this from alliance for justice:

http://www.allianceforjustice.org/judicial/research_publications/research_documents/McConnell_%20Report_web.pdf

"In his numerous writings, Professor McConnell has articulated an extreme philosophy originalism and federalism. This philosophy leads him to reject such groundbreaking Supreme Court decisions as Roe v. Wade, Bob Jones University v. United States, Baker v. Carr, Reynolds
Sims, South Dakota v. Dole, Lemon v. Kurtzman and the ruling in Bolling v. Sharpe that federal government is bound by the equal protection doctrine. Legal academics should be free explore new and provocative constitutional theories and to disagree with Supreme Court decisions in strong terms. But Professor McConnell’s writings clearly delineate a jurisprudential philosophy that compels results hostile to fundamental rights and liberties. Despite acknowledging these consequences, he remains adamantly committed to his extremist interpretation of the Constitution. He offers no reason for senators to believe that he could set his personal views when deciding cases. His writings are therefore proper grounds for
deciding that he should not be appointed to a lifetime seat on the court of appeals."

If the loon liberals would right things like that about Roberts, I'd be very happy.