Posted on 10/28/2005 2:33:51 AM PDT by goldstategop
I got quite a few guffaws two weeks ago when I "guaranteed" that Harriet Miers would never testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Many scoffed when I "promised" that Miers would withdraw her nomination to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Some suggested I had gone out on a limb by making such a certain prediction – leaving no wiggle room for myself whatsoever.
Well, since I'm on a roll, I thought I would make a prediction about her replacement.
Now, keep in mind, this is an educated guess. This is not a promise. This is not a guarantee. Don't bet the farm on this one.
It is partly hunch. It is partly the result of studying the list of possible nominees and my knowledge of the character and mind of George W. Bush. It is also based on some insights we have gained into the president's criteria through the Miers' debacle.
Do you remember what James Dobson said he was told by Karl Rove about Bush's requirements for the O'Connor seat?
Dobson said the president insisted that the pick had to be a woman.
That's it. No other qualifications were mentioned. Rove said many highly qualified contenders had to be scratched because they did not wear skirts.
So, is it safe to assume that standard is still in place?
Is it safe to assume that Bush is sticking with this important affirmative action principle?
Is it safe to assume that Bush will still go with a woman?
If he does, here's my guess about who that woman will be: Maureen Mahoney.
Maureen who?
Maureen Mahoney.
She is 50 years old, a lawyer in private practice – one of the credentials Bush said attracted him to Miers.
She is often described as the female version of Chief Justice John Roberts, the man selected by Bush twice – first to replace O'Connor and later to replace William Rehnquist as the head of the Supreme Court.
Obviously, if he liked Roberts, he should like the female version of him.
Mahoney clerked for Rehnquist and she has argued cases before the Supreme Court.
But here's another clue for you all: She also served as deputy solicitor general under Kenneth Starr, the establishment fixer and close friend and political ally of Roberts.
It was Starr who engineered – duplicitously, I might add – the nomination of O'Connor during the Reagan administration. It was Starr who conspired with Roberts to minimize conservative influence in the Reagan Justice Department. It was Starr and Roberts who lied about O'Connor's record as a legislator in Arizona to fool President Reagan into thinking she was a gal after his own heart.
Whenever the establishment wants something, it turns to Starr to help make it a reality. Even conservatives, whom he has warred with for 30 years, don't begin to comprehend he is their enemy.
Conservatives were fooled into believing the lie that Kenneth Starr was appointed as independent counsel during Bill Clinton's administration to clean up the corruption in the White House. He was not. He was appointed to cover it up. And he did a heckuva job. He is still feted by gullible conservatives for what they perceive to have been a valiant effort to bring Clinton to justice. It was never his intent. He's a cover-up artist from the word "go."
Shouldn't we expect Starr's fingerprints to be on the next nominee?
He helped bring us O'Connor. He helped bring us Roberts. And I think it will be one of his proteges – another woman – who fills the O'Connor seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mahoney is perhaps most famous for representing the University of Michigan before the Supreme Court defending its indefensible affirmative-action program. She wasn't just a hired gun. She really believed in the case. She really believed that government agencies should discriminate against people based on race. She really believed that was constitutional and moral.
She told the university news service: "I'm a Republican, and there's a common misconception that all Republicans oppose affirmative action. I care deeply about the issue."
Mahoney is no stranger to nominations for federal judicial posts. The first President Bush named her to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, but the Senate did not act on her nomination before the end of Bush's term.
She seems to be the favorite of liberal analysts hoping for another stealth Supreme Court nominee – someone along the lines of David Souter or Anthony Kennedy or Sandra Day O'Connor. She was No. 1 on Slate.com's "shortlist" of possible Republican nominees who believe in "moderation."
Oh, and by the way, her long list of clients includes the government of Saudi Arabia.
I'd say she's nearly a shoo-in.
Remember the name: Maureen Mahoney. Remember where you heard it first.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Mahoney isn't a stealth nominee... She's a liberal, period.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
"Affirmative action," BTW, is not about race. It's more about keeping as many women as possible in the labor pool.
After the Miers fiasco, Bush will want someone who has already been through Senate confirmation. If female, Janice Rogers Brown. If male, Ted Olson. Dark horse is Senate club member John Cornyn.
The MSM mentioned her yesterday, lumping her in with conservatives. Hopefully, Bush and/or his aides read Farah's column, otherwise Far Right/Whacko/Evil/Stridend/Hard Right wing of the party, et. al, will have to hit the computers again.
I guess conservatives will have to keep their powder dry.
But if Rove is tied up in hearings, his malignant influence may be diminished.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
wELL jOE WAS Right about Harriet.
I'd like Garza, but W might think that Marine might be a little to old?
So what, Harry Reid didn't vote for this president.
Heard the 5:30am bottom of the hour update on FNC, and the news reports said Rove will not be indicted.
Right, so don't get caught up in frenzied emotion in what idiots like Harry Reid has to say.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Most unfortunate.
He's no friend of ours.
Here's my prediction--No chance---zero. Bush needs to pick one from the recommendations we've given him as a group.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Farah had to be hoping to innoculate, to poison that particular well before it was used to brew another batch of kool-aid.
I did not know about the Starr-Roberts connection. Like Farrah, I believe Starr did a whole lot more burying than he did prosecuting. It is amazing that with all of Clinton's high crimes and misdemeanors, he was never really brought to justice, though the disbarrment was nice. Yet, Rove and company may be indicted for not actually committing a crime.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
I think he's wrong. Why would President Bush nominate her when the White House filed a brief with the SC against UM's admissions policy, and Bush made a speech specifically about that issue?
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.