Bush Reported Near to Nominating Judge (Reported this past Friday)

The New York Times ^ | September 29, 2005 | Elisabeth Bumiller

[TexasGreg]

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 - President Bush is close to naming a successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and could announce his choice this week, Republicans close to the White House said Wednesday.

One name that was the source of enormous speculation in Washington legal and political circles was Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, who is a leader in the search for Justice O'Connor's successor. Ms. Miers, 60, was the first woman to become a partner at a major Texas law firm and the first woman to be president of the State Bar of Texas. At one point, Ms. Miers was Mr. Bush's personal lawyer.

[Clintonfatigued]

Harriet Miers would be a clever choice, a candidate with no paper trail with to distort her record. She would be as much a teflon nominee as Roberts was. However, her age is an obsticle, as conservatives want someone who'll be around for the long haul.

Diane Sykes of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, a former member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, would be a great choice. She's 46, with a conservative but mostly uncontroversial record (though her ex-husband is highly controversial in Wisconsin), and she was confirmed last year by a 70 to 27 vote, including 31 Democrats.

[MNJohnnie]

: MNJohnnie
LOL

I wouldn't want ANYTHING to do with it LOL


Just doing my part to help the White House keep the suspense going :-)

[Clintonfatigued]

"It'd force the Dems to attack a black female"

They've already attacked her, even going so far as to filibuster her.

[Always Right]

Interesting. I hadn't heard her name mentioned before (Consuelo Maria Callahan - I love it!).

She is considered in the same mold as O'Conner, a 'moderate' conservative who is supported by Leahy and Feinstein.

[TexasGreg]

JRB would be incredible. But why do you think Owens would be "socking it to them"?

Put it this way ... the Dems have made it clear that they will filibuster Pricilla Owens if Bush nominates her for SCOTUS. That's good enough for me.

The Dems HATE her. That's ALSO good enough for me.

http://www.wiolawapress.com/apriscilla.htm

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/05/05/ale05070.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0520/p03s01-uspo.html -- "Democrats say she is a conservative judicial activist, intent on enforcing restrictive social views on anyone who steps into her courtroom. Some allege she was handpicked in 1994 by Karl Rove, now a key adviser to Mr. Bush. Democrats say her judicial record shows she is a pro-business, antienvironment judge who takes a narrow view in civil rights cases."

Planned ParentHood HATES her: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/femalesexualhealth/report-030114-rights.xml

NOW HATES her: http://www.now.org/issues/judicial/owens.html

The REST OF THE LEFT HATES her: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/000455.html

[livius]

She sounded more conservative than Mier, but maybe not...

Being supported by Leahy and Feinstein is not a good thing.

[Prime Choice]

Kerry not even there!

Is Kerry ever there?? ;o)

[NeoCaveman]

Man it be nice to have a Marine on the SCOTUS. SEMPER FI.

Send in the Marine. SEMPER FI

[NeoCaveman]

Shhhh......It's Heather Locklear

Can we get her a robe that is a little more form fitting?

[Texas Federalist]

Put it this way ... the Dems have made it clear that they will filibuster Pricilla Owens if Bush nominates her for SCOTUS. That's good enough for me. The Dems HATE her. That's ALSO good enough for me.

Everything you say is true. But the Dems hate a lot of people Bush could put up. They even threw a fit when Gonzales was nominated as AG. I think Luttig or Edith Jones would tick them off even more AND each has a better chance of being another Scalia/Thomas on Court. We really don't know enough about Owens other than she most likely will be a good choice. I want a sure thing.

[mysonsfuture]

BTW, word is that Judge Moore will announce on October 3 that he is running for governor of Alabama. This will be great!

[FreedomHasACost]

Here's a little info-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Luttig

http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1443

[cusp]

No way Miers. Just a Clement front. If W is true to his campaign it will certainly be Luttig---and my checks to the DNC will recommence.

I'll be Ok with Jones or Owens and will party hard if its Brown

[LucyJo]

She sounded more conservative than Mier, but maybe not...

Being supported by Leahy and Feinstein is not a good thing.
======
I really don't think it will be either of these ladies, and I hope it isn't.

Janice Rogers Brown, Luttig, or Edith Jones are my personal favorites, and I'm hoping for JRB.

[shield]

I hope and pray it's not AG Gonzales....

[TexasGreg]

Everything you say is true. But the Dems hate a lot of people Bush could put up. They even threw a fit when Gonzales was nominated as AG. I think Luttig or Edith Jones would tick them off even more AND each has a better chance of being another Scalia/Thomas on Court. We really don't know enough about Owens other than she most likely will be a good choice. I want a sure thing.

Oh, I entirely agree. Luttig would be fantastic, Brown would be GREAT, and I would be pleased with Edith Jones, too. I would much prefer a sure thing, too. Since the Dems are going to pitch a fit no matter WHAT, I say go for it and appoint the most conservative, strict-constructionist, pro-life judges available. They going to fight and filibuster no matter what, so get the best you can and Nuke the Dem's on it.

That's what I would LOVE. But I'm not one to only accept what I would LOVE ... I'll take the best that I can reasonably expect and get. If that means small steps ... incrementalism ... then FINE, so long as it's motion in the RIGHT direction. Things didn't get to where they are today over night, and I'm willing to accept that it's going to take some time for it to get fixed. One of the problems with many Conservatives is that, more often than not, they are an impatient lot who "want it all, and want it NOW." The Dems have gotten their way by the principle of "slow but steady wins the race." IF we can get it all now, fine. But if we can't, don't throw it all away in a temper-tantrum that people on our side screwed up on a topipc or two. Take the LONG view, and be patient.

[HapaxLegamenon]

I am worried. According to NR online and restate and others, the President would really, really, really, like to put his friend on SCOTUS. He hasn't made up his mind yet, and keeps second guessing himself, whenever they get close. Its like he can not bring himself to not nominate AG, which means we might get stuck with him.