Posted on 07/04/2005 9:20:24 PM PDT by GOPGuide
[SNIP]
On Friday, with the announced retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor from the Supreme Court, It took a few minutes for the news to set in on Capitol Hill, among Republicans and Democrats alike. After all, even the White House in briefing Republican leadership on the Hill spoke in the belief that it would be Chief Justice William Rehnquist who is retiring.
"The White House seemed to be expecting Rehnquist first, that was what my boss was getting briefed on," says a staffer for a Senator sitting on the Judiciary Committee. "We were told Rehnquist in July, possibly later this year."
Rumors are already swirling about a possible third retirement after November. The most likely would be Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who according to former Supreme Court clerks may be in poorer health than Justice Rehnquist.
"That's the seat for [Albert] Gonzales, that third seat if it opens up," says Department of Justice staffer. "All of this depends on how the first nomination goes, but the assumption here is that this is not the time for Gonzales."
As of this writing federal Judge Emilio Garza is the frontrunner to replace O'Conner. There are several indicators, which may all be red herrings, but that is half the fun.
First, Texas Sen. John Cornyn met with the President, as well as Chief of Staff Andrew Card and several members of the White House Counsel office early Friday. Up on Capitol Hill, rumors were quickly swirling that Cornyn had been offered the Supreme Court nomination. Those rumors were fueled when his senior staff essentially went underground for several hours.
But later in the day, Cornyn was making television appearances to discuss the nominations process, as well as placing an op-ed about the process.
Cornyn is now believed to be the President's point person in the Senate to help measure the level of support for potential nominees. "He's the President's 'consultation' guy," says a Senate leadership source. "That's how we're proceeding. If he is the nominee, we will be surprised again. But that's nothing new with this White House."
Cornyn and Garza know each other from their days in Texas and other legal circles.
Another indicator of Garza's status is that several senior Republican staffers on the Judiciary Committee have begun poring over court rulings from the period of 1987 through 1990, a period when Garza served as a U.S. district judge before his elevation to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
That research, though, could just as well apply to Judge Edith Hollan Jones, who has been sitting on the Fifth Circuit since 1985. Jones was considered for possible Supreme Court nominations by President George H.W. Bush.
If the next President is Republican... every liberal on the court could be replaced by a conservative in our lifetime :)
*ahhhh* now I can sleep well tonight.
Oh please please please please!!!
In all the discussions of replacements on the SCOTUS, I've seen no mention of the possibility of President Bush's eventual replacement of John Paul Stevens, who is 85 years old. How is HIS health?
Just to see the libs go apoplectic, I would like to see Bush nominate either Ashcroft or Ken Starr.
You are aware that she had solid Republican support in 1993, and Orrin G. Hatch co-sponsored her nomination.
She's a harpy for the ACLU - a communist front if there ever was one. That is the entire point - her destructive effect on ALL of us.
Her friendship with Scalia is in no way redeeming. I have an avowed Marxist in my family and he alright if he's not harping on about class, etc. I also have a socialist peace monkey brother in law that is otherwise a fine human being. The fact that I can enjoy their company in no way diminishes what they are and what the consequences of their beliefs - should they triumph - will be for America.
I have often thought of what the outcome would be if revolution forced us to take harder sides. Despite my familial ties, I would do whatever my duty led me to do.
You obviously don't have a clue as to what a Rockefeller Republican is. Or Bush for that matter.
There's no limit to how many judges may be placed on the Supreme court; there's only historical precedent. If a judge on the USSC was incapacitated substantially enough, there's no reason that the President and the Senate could not place another person on the court. The only possible drawback could be political fallout, if the public perceived this as an attempt to "pack the court."
>>Let's lay off Gonzales - if he is W's friend, how lib can he be? <<
Let's just say that may not have been the most wise argument to have constructed in these waters.
He has also made statements to the effect that he thinks the US needs more illegal aliens, and (supposedly -- I haven't seen this one myself) he's a gun-grabber. Plus, the DOJ didn't weigh in on Kelo. So let's see:
Supports the Mexican invasion
Supports abortion rights (takes the "Cuomo" position)
Supports affirmative action
Supports gun control
Failed to oppose land grabbing
The only thing we don't know is that whether he supports state-sanctionned sodomy... But other than that, he's pretty much David Souter.
Oh, he's more liberal than just upholding Roe v. Wade. (Actually either side in the Texas case challeneged Roe v. Wade.)
Texas passed a law requiring parental consent. To make the law pass constitutional muster, they permitted exceptions. Gonzalez voted to permit judges to uniformly waive parental consent as the norm.
Apart from the abortion issue, it was terrible law. The legislature, recognizing the need for judgment, had given judges precisely what they are always asking for, discretion. The judge, who not only permitted anyone before him to get an abortion, but also, in doing so, became the "go-to" guy, was clearly abusing his discretion. So what Gonzalez was insisting on was the absence of what for thouosands of years had been the basis of jurisprudence: only a law which offered no discretion would be able to acheive the legislative aims of the pro-lifers.
ping...
Why?
I think that Ginsberg is a stubborn liberal and the only way she'll come out of that Supreme Court while Pres. Bush is in office, is feet first. If you know what I mean.
The very obvious intent of the legislature was not to make the exceptions so broad, but to define as narrowly as possible without abridging the woman's "rights," afforded to her by Roe-v.-Wade. The proof of the legislative intent was demonsrated when the legislature condemned Gonzalez' rulings and did precisely what any judge (dating back thousands of years) would not want to force a legislature to do: they passed a new law, restricting judicial discretion.
Conservativism, in theory, would seek to preserve judicial discretion. It is only because the systematic, ideological perversion of that discretion that American conservatives have been forced into the undesirable position of having to restrict such discretion.
My only hesitance with Cornyn - and this is a reach - is that he is more political than ideological. (Most ideologues will disagree with the ACU on at least one issue as to what defines a conservative stance.) I would have some tinge of fear that he could make a political decision that overturning Roe v. Wade could unsettle the current political alignment that favors Republicans. (Which would be a wrong decision, but who knows.) Sandra Day O'Connor *looked* very conservative, until she was in an unelected position.
But truthfully, short of Jones, Cornyn would be pretty darn good.
True. She, as well as Stevens, just flat may not live much longer.
Garza works for me. From everything I've heard, he sounds very good indeed.
Although this is a thread about Ginsburg, I wanted to respond to your Senate predictions.
While I would like to agree with your optimistic appraisal of 2006, I need to point out a single race that will probably go to the Dems --- Pennsylvania.
Rick Santorum is in the fight for his political life against Robert Casey, Jr, son of the late Democrat governor.
The Casey name is well respected here in PA. Santorum has lost some support (you can find threads here on FR) due to his support for Arlen Specter's re-election.
Given that Casey is pro-life (not as strongly as Santorum, pro-gun (ditto) and a Democrat, many retired union members feel it is safe to vote for him.
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.