Analysis: A Romney pick for top U.S. court? Frontrunners emerge

Reuters ^ | April 19, 2012 | David Ingram

[Clintonfatigued]

Paul Clement, who served as U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush and is now a lawyer in private practice, is the favorite of many conservatives. Clement argued last month for the Supreme Court to strike down Obama's 2010 healthcare law, and he is defending laws that ban same-sex marriage and that target illegal immigrants.

Clement, 45, would be "at the top of any short list right now," said Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a group that advocates for conservative nominees.

Asked about Clement, Mary Ann Glendon, a co-chairwoman of Romney's Justice Advisory Committee, voiced "unbounded admiration" for him.

"He's the type of person who fits the mold that the governor has pledged to look for," Glendon said, adding that "it's much too soon to speculate about names."

Mentioned as often as Clement is Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Kavanaugh, 47, sits on a court that produced four sitting justices. He has deep roots in Washington, D.C., having worked in the Bush White House and assisted in the 1990s investigation that nearly led to President Bill Clinton's ouster.

Kavanaugh is known for elaborate opinions such as a 65-page dissent he wrote in November exploring how an 1867 tax law barred courts from considering Obama's healthcare law until 2015.

A third possibility, Judge Diane Sykes, is often mentioned as a likely Romney nominee if the next person to leave the Supreme Court is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court's senior woman justice. Ginsburg has survived cancer twice.

Sykes, 54, was appointed to a Chicago-based U.S. appeals court in 2004, overcoming Democratic criticism of her record in abortion-related cases.

[Agamemnon]

As governor of Massachusetts, Romney chose very liberal candidates for that State’s Supreme Court. He now says he had no choice in the matter.

Appears you didn't actually read the article:

Romney, Massachusetts governor from 2003 to 2007, did not have a chance to name someone to that state's highest court. But he sent signals that he wanted courts to move in a more conservative direction.

Romney frequently railed against a 2003 ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that legalized same-sex marriage. In 2005, he told the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, that the justices were threatening "great peril to the culture of our entire land," The Boston Globe reported at the time.

Although Romney's picks for lower state courts included many Democrats, his advisers say he was constrained by the state's liberal tilt, and he chose a Federalist Society member to run his selection process.

Since it is quite obvious that you didn't read the article it's also likely that you have no knowledge of who the Federalist Society is.

Educate yourself.

The Federalist Society

I can't stand lazy FReepers.

FReegards!

[Hawthorn]

>> Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder <<

Hey, what kinda grudge you got against Van Jones?

[Hawthorn]

>> they’ll be like GHWB or Nixon/Ford selections <<

In other words, like Clarence Thomas (GHWB) or William Renquist (Nixon).

And the problem with that would be . . . ?

[SatinDoll]

I know what the Federalist Society is, thank you very much. This means he had enough brains to CYA for scrutiny later. Let's make it clear, here: Romney's lack of conscience or fierceness in projecting conservatism doesn't mean he lacks intelligence.

Romney is a SELF-AVOWED Progressive (read: national socialist). He's also a Globalist, just like George H.W. Bush. They are all about money, power, and who will eventually wield both. Neither truly gives a damn about the God-given rights of U.S. citizens.

Globalists care nothing for conservative values. First and foremost, they see themselves as world citizens, responsible for maintaining peace and security world-wide through international commerce. Thus maintaining a primed military ‘machine’, ready to provide the all important security overseas is a necessary part of their plans.

That military is paid for by our tax revenue, the hard earned dollars of Americans, and staffed by the sons and daughters of people who no longer have jobs, as those have all been moved offshore by the above mentioned “world citizens”.

[rogue yam]

I know what the Federalist Society is, thank you very much. This means he had enough brains to CYA for scrutiny later.

You are pushing an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

[izzatzo]

True, Thomas and Rehnquist were good, Souter was not. My memory having been jogged, Nixon did OK.

[SatinDoll]

“You are pushing an unfalsifiable hypothesis.”

LOL!

Mitt Romney has probably wanted to be President since he father considered it, and failed. George Romney, Mitt's dad, couldn't be President because he wasn't a natural born citizen, having been born in Mexico. If you are unaware, he was an opponent and nasty critic of the conservative Barry Goldwater.

Mitt Romney is smart and he has money. Being President would be one-up on his old man, and Mitt wants it ever so much! Both he and his dad admired and were acquainted with Saul Alinsky. When I said he, Mitt Romney, is an admitted Progressive, it was factual.

Mitt ain't no conservative but that doesn't mean he won't go through the motions to appear as though listening and consulting with them. He will do anything because he wants to inhabit the White House, and like most men who've coveted the position, he will no doubt be highly ineffective once there.

[Servant of the Cross]

Great post. This list is the conservative law equivalent of the 1927 Yankees.

[Agamemnon]

I know what the Federalist Society is, thank you very much. This means he had enough brains to CYA for scrutiny later.

You obviously don't have much respect for the Federalist Society. You must think they are some pack of gullible fools inclined to be played. You do realize that Scalia and Thomas (GHWB USSC appointee) are founding members of he Federalist Society, don't you?

I see it quite differently. The Federalist Society advised Romney because Romney reached out for their advice to make as conservative appointments as could be made "behind enemy lines" in a State run by 90% (D) politicians from whatever conservative "timber" was available.

Reagan gave us Scalia, but he also gave us the "Globalist" equal-TX-faggot rights, global warmist, patently unreliable, Anthony Kennedy.

Reagan also gave us the EEOC-sop, Sandra Day O'Conner, as a thanks to what was then the now substantially liberal, pro-abort Goldwater. Yeah that Goldwater - the "Conscience of a Conservative" Goldwater by that time now turned the "Conscience-lessness of a former-Conservative" Goldwater, c. 1981.

GHWB gave us Thomas as much as he gave us the failed Souter. Son of that same "Globalist GHWB" batted 1000 with Alito and Roberts appointments.

All that "CYA" talk is such a load of conspiratorial horsecrap from a person who has already demonstrated that their research skills are so poor, lazy, or both, that they post to threads without reading the article, and just repeat parroted lines of the Left and Obama supporters.

He's also a Globalist, just like George H.W. Bush. They are all about money, power, and who will eventually wield both.

Still fighting the 1992 primary are we? Let me guess, you were a Pat Buchanan supporter who undercut GHWB in 1992 primaries, and then went for the "BeltWay bandit" Perot as your next self-righteous alternative.

Globalists care nothing for conservative values. First and foremost, they see themselves as world citizens, ... as those have all been moved offshore by the above mentioned “world citizens”.

You have the attention span of a flea, and ramble off-topic like some centenarian in a nursing home rhapsodizing about his morning prunes.

What does inveighing against "Globalists like GHWB" have to do anything with the topic of this thread: "Analysis: A Romney pick for top U.S. court? Frontrunners emerge"?

Try to stay on topic.

FReegards!

[chiller]

...Kinda getting ahead of ourselves here. He’s not even officially the nominee and now he’s making SCOTUS appointments?

True, but look who's thinking about it ? Reuters ! They see what's coming and know Obie doesn't have a chance in hell.

I'm comforted--well actually I was never worried--but many FReepers should be comforted by the names here.

But, you're correct in another sense....it's too early to know whom Mitt would actually nominate, even though Clement and Kavanaugh are likelies by most all standards. I don't sense Romney is a liberal. I think he's a conservative Mormon, (as most are, aren't they), forced to operative in the most liberal environment, who wrongly believed you had to work with liberals to survive.

[SatinDoll]

How much is the Romney campaign paying you for these attacks on real conserbatives?

[Agamemnon]

How much is the Romney campaign paying you for these attacks on real conserbatives [sic.]?"

"Conserbatives" is what they call people with names like Boris and Lyudmila in places like Russia and the Ukraine.

I don't believe Romney has any campaign operatives East of the Caucasus at this time.

That said, conspiracy theorists, like yourself, have the same value in moving conservatism forward as do other such navel gazers -- which is to say -- not very much.

Duke Ellington's signature song, "Satin Doll," sounds so good, because "the Duke" was able to stay on beat.

Perhaps you could extrapolate a lesson from that about staying on topic.

But if you are troubled about your ability to defend your positions, or to remain on topic, I am sure there are courses available that can can help you focus your attention better than you are demonstrating an ability to do so at present.

FReegards!

[Colonel_Flagg]

Unfortunately, Mutt would need to buck his own record on judicial appointments if he were to appoint an actual conservative. I’d believe that when I saw it and not a second before.

Should he be fortunate enough to win, that is.

[Impy]

Whoever it is they should be under 60.

[rurgan]

Janice Rogers Brown should be on the top of the list. Plus she is a black woman Judge so the liberals would have a hard time defeating her. W. Bush appointed Janice Rogers Brown on the D.C. Circuit of Appeals. She is one of the most eloquent spokesperson’s for the Constitution

Here is some of what Brown says:

Janice Rogers Brown On American Government:
Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible. [“A Whiter Shade of Pale,” Speech to Federalist Society (April 20. 2000)(“Federalist speech” at 8]Where government advances – and it advances relentlessly – freedom is imperiled; community impoverished; religion marginalized and civilization itself jeopardized....When did government cease to be a necessary evil and become a goody bag to solve our private problems? [“Hyphenasia: the Mercy Killing of the American Dream,” Speech at Claremont-McKenna College (Sept. 16, 1999) at 3,4]In the last 100 years – and particularly in the last 30 – ...[g]overnment has been transformed from a necessary evil to a nanny – benign, compassionate, and wise. Sometimes transformation is a good thing. Sometimes, though, it heralds not higher ground but rather, to put a different gloss on Pat Moynihan’s memorable phrase, defining democracy down. [“Fifty Ways to Lose Your Freedom,” Speech to Institute of Justice (Aug. 12, 2000)(“IFJ speech”) at 2][W]e no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens. [IFJ speech at 3-4]Government acts as a giant siphon, extracting wealth, creating privilege and power, and redistributing it. [Speech at McGeorge School of Law (Nov. 21, 1997) at 18][See also Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal Commission, 953 P.2d 1188, 1212 (Cal. 1998)(Brown, J., dissenting)(referring to government as “relentless siphon.”)]
http://joshuajamesbrown.blogspot.com/2008/06/judge-janice-rogers-brown-dc-circuit.html

[Clintonfatigued]

Janice Rogers Brown would be a great addition, but she got filibustered in 2005 for her current post (D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals) and it took a major deal in the Senate to get her confirmed. It depends partly on how many Republicans are elected to the U.S. Senate.

[BuckeyeTexan]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.