Sandra Day O'Connor retires. now begins the fight!

Immediately? I imagine an anti-abortion activist filing some kind of case, but it would take a while to get to the SCOTUS. Even if the right to privacy was severely cut back and Roe v. Wade were overturned, SCOTUS couldn't outlaw abortion, only leave it up to congress and the states. Undoubtedly many states would rush to pass such bans but would Congress?

O'Connor wasn't the swing vote on Bush v Gore.

xpost.

FUCK, is right.

How TF could they do that? For minors perhaps, but adults?

Simple... just look at something like the Unborn Victims Of Violence Act. We've already set a precedent by putting in place a law makes killing a fetus the same as a standard homicide. A woman travels from Utah to California to get an abortion, and she comes home to face murder charges.

Not quite. There's still 5 more-or-less pro-choice votes: Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Kennedy. But Kennedy's squishy. So the most likely thing you get is states passing more and more restrictions, and Kennedy allowing more and more chipping away at Roe.

and the Daily Show textbook is still accurate, when it talks about people calling it a "litmus test:"

"...Because calling it an 'abortion test' would be too creepy."

Also talking about how it is now the apparent job of the judge to vote whichever way the president who appointed them would have thought.

Still, this begins a VERY long, and very harsh fight, where i'd put money down that all the shitty rhetoric we've heard so far this year(re: on judicial activists, terri schaivo, filibusters, etc) will be NOTHING compared to what's coming up. Be prepared for more Republicans going on christian reactionary tv to beg for God's Hand in helping them enact whatever they feel like.

I'm sure I'm not looking closely enough, but none of them seem, on paper, as hideous as some of the assholes occupying seats currently... aside from the skewing the balance.

It looks like two is the minimum we'll probably see. There could be even more than 2.

That said, my guess is also with Estrada, at least if Rove is in Bush's ear.

http://entomology.unl.edu/images/earwigs/euro_earwig.jpg

I looked up the Clinton nominations. There were two: Ginsburg and Breyer.

Haha yeah that's real fucking accurate, kingface, I mean look at Souter and Thomas! Those are some fucking predictable-ass judges right there. Oh yeah.

Being shrill freak OUT ohmiGOD my RIGHTS why do I live in a country that HATES ME is oh nevermind totally fucking predictable for this board so whatever. I'm not going to argue with anybody on this thread.

You guys keep crying on each others' shoulders like it's the end of the world. Don't quote me on this but I'm fairly confident it's not. I'm also fairly confident that Bush will not actually be able to push through a nominee that is the Wingnut Satan you all keep imagining. Have a little faith in the Dems, for once.

NB this post is not aimed at everybody posting, just the usual suspects I get tired of hearing from. Dr Morbius, let me have some of your acid.

Sorry.

PONCH ROCKS

Doesn't have to be a Wingnut Satan. There's no way Bush will nominate someone who isn't anti-Roe, anti-gay-marriage, etc. etc. He might find someone who walks and talks nice and smooth, but any nominee's going to have to be a baseline social conservative. The bottom line is that we're going to replace a moderate Republican with a conservative Republican -- and they're going to do some careful vetting this time to make sure they don't get some kind of closet moderate.

This is just one seat, so yeah, it won't mean any sudden, cataclysmic change, but it puts us one vote closer to a real takeover of the court by ideological conservatives. I agree that that's no cause for rending garments, because what's the point? But it's not a small thing, either. The conservative court will be with us long after the modern conservative movement has sputtered (just as a generally liberal court outlasted the death of the post-WWII liberal consensus).

The right to interstate travel is a fundamental right solidly protected by the privileges and immunities clause of the fourth amendment. While a state might pass a law making it a crime to cross state lines to get an abortion, that law should fail spectacularly under constitutional analysis when the inevitable challence comes. However, I could see Scalia's personal agenda getting in the way of logical constitutional analysis (again) and Thomas always votes with Scalia and if Bush nominates two complete fundies... well a 5-4 decision to uphold the right to free travel between the states is a pretty chilling thought.

However, if the fundamental right to travel between the states IS overturned, me and Barrack are going to build a wall around Illinois and found the great nation of Obamada. Abortions for everybody!

PS I would take another Rehnquist. Yes, he was conservative in his constitutional interpretations, but he was at least logical and found a constitutional basis for his decision. Unlike Scalia who just thinks there's an army of American Homos massing against him personally.

Haha yeah that's real fucking accurate, kingface, I mean look at Souter and Thomas! Those are some fucking predictable-ass judges right there. Oh yeah.

BOO HOO HOO NO ONE LIKES MY KINGFACE.

still, are you gunna say the two folks he winds up putting into place WON'T be so ideologically pedantic that they'll do something other than voting down the Party line?

xpost

altho, guys like Tom Hartman pointed out on his radio show that one of the reasons why the Constitution DOESN'T include the word, "privacy", is b/c the word meant something DIFFERENT than what it does today. hint: it had to do with the "privy".

...there seems to be a supposition here that the president is obliged to fulfill conservative wishes in his appointments to the Court. He isn't, though he should. I refuse to believe that if the president nominated Al Gonzales, he couldn't get him through. Every Republican in the Senate (well, one was absent that day) voted for Gonzales for Attorney General. Would anybody argue that a man fit for that office is unfit for the court? I mean, somebody like Brownback could try, I suppose, but it's not a very good argument. And would Republicans in the Senate actually destroy the Bush presidency by collaborating in a Democratic takedown of his Supreme Court nominee? I don't think so.

I don't believe Gonzales will be one of the picks, by the way. But even so, there seems to be a lot of angry talk on the Right that hints at blocking a choice with which some on the Right will be unhappy. That is political and ideological suicide. It will finish off this presidency and splinter the GOP before 2006 (and more importantly, 2008).

Ponnuru's response is rather telling in turn:

Who said Bush wouldn't get Gonzales through the Senate to the Court? I didn't. I didn't even say Gonzales wouldn't get the votes of Allen, Frist, et al. I just said that it would be a tougher vote for them than a vote on a more obviously conservative nominee would be.

Also, there is a portion of the Right that invested in the Bush presidency for the Supreme Court. It will do no good with these people to say that they should not risk ruining the Bush presidency over their objection to a nominee. From their perspective, the Bush presidency would already have been ruined--and their motive for caring about the fate of the Republicans would be much diminished.

A little something to keep in mind.

Someone like Scalia, his stated Supreme Court ideal? Yeah, I'm real, real proud of him.

Agree with him or not, he's pretty funny in his own little way. And I really like reading his decisions for some reason.

TOMBOT: OTM. The reason the Right is "winning" is because they NEVER say "OMG WTF." Well, they do, but they get over it and get organized. The left is too busy pulling its hair out and hiding from the falling sky to, you know, actually get anything done. [/gross overgeneralization]

Ponnuru's pretty OTM, too: the religious wing of the right could give too shits about reaching some kind of political detante. They came to the party for one reasona and one reason only: the Supreme Court. We ignore this at our peril, imho.

Interest Groups Mobilize for Court Push

WASHINGTON - Conservative and liberal groups sprang into action quickly with word of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement, telephoning supporters and firing off e-mails to mobilize backers for a high-stakes Senate confirmation battle.

O'Connor was a swing vote on many cases, and interest groups are watching keenly to see whether President Bush replaces her with a more conservative justice to force the high court more to the right.

"Justice OConnor played a pivotal role on the Court, and the nation has a tremendous amount at stake with her resignation," said Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families.

With O'Connor's announcement Friday representing the first test of these organizations' clout in the Internet Age, people on both sides of the political spectrum flooded their backers around the country with e-mail and pager alerts, telling them about the retirement and calling for their help.

People for the American Way, which set up a war room specifically for the Supreme Court battle in downtown Washington, immediately sent out thousands of e-mails to its supporters and was setting up phone banks to make calls around the nation to build up support for Senate Democrats.

"The American people must be part of this great debate over our future," president Ralph Neas said.

MoveOn PAC immediately announced a cable television they would spend $280,000, a realtively small amount, in Maine, Nebraska, South Carolina, Virginia, New York City and Washington, D.C., trying to discourage Bush from picking a strict conservative.

"Will George Bush pick an extremist who will threaten our rights?" the commercial asks.

Pro-choice groups like Planned Parenthood, already are scheduling rallies around the nation to push President Bush to not choose a hard-right conservative for O'Connor's seat. "With so much at stake, Planned Parenthood will be on the frontlines of the Supreme Court battles to ensure women's health is protected," said interim president Karen Pearl.

"Progress for America stands ready to defend whomever President Bush nominates from the Left's character assassination campaign," said Brian McCabe, PFA's president. "The president's nominee deserves real consideration not instant attacks."

Progress for America has already said it expects to spend $18 million to get Bush's nominee confirmed to the Supreme Court, and has already started running television and radio ads around the nation.

I like how the conservative groups are trying to co-opt even more liberal naming, with "Progress of America" being the name for a reactionary front.

First, one reason that a substantial part of the Liberal crowd freaks so much is precisely that the current incarnation of Right likes to punch you in the mouth and dare you to do anything (that is, pull a move beyond the left's expectations), and,

Second, it is apparently a secret that the majority of Americans favor both abortion rights and J. Douglas' famous Constitutional "emanations" that resulted in Griswold. It is better to try and stop Roe's and Griswold's overturn than to wait until afterwards and say "SEE, WE TOLD YA"!

And, I have no doubt that if some red state tries to make it illegal for a married couple to buy contraceptives, a lot of Bush voters will join their Liberal enemies in a chorus of "OMG WTF?"!

xpost

exactly, so they won't go this way. They'll start by enacting ordinances is several small towns that will do shit like banning minors from buying contraceptives, then they'll bring it up as a state-wide voting initiative a few years later after the idea is commonplace.

remember, they've learned to work in steps e.g. tring to ban the "partial-birth" abortion and getting "fetus as victim" laws on the books. All a matter of building up precedents.

I think the Right says OMG WTF way more than the Left does. They're all over the fucking place. More talk radio, more cable news, more political blogs than the left, and almost all of it filled 24 hours a day with shrill whining and hysterical doomsday scenarios. Not that the Left is immune to any of that, but the Right is just noisier about it. And they do "get organized," but I think people give them too much credit for that, because there's something else going on. The conservative Right (to make a broad and in some cases unfair generalization) is about the raw pursuit and concentration of power, and that lends itself to easier organization and focus. The liberal Left is about checks, balances and broader distribution of power, which is inherently a harder sell and harder to rally people around. The Left's suspicion of power and its abuses can easily be painted as weakness (soft on terror, crime, communism, whatever, the point is that they're "soft"), and is harder to build hero narratives around. The Left's model of organization is collective; the Right's is authoritarian. Collective organization is harder. So it's not just that the current liberal leadership in this country is hapless (although it is); it's also that Left liberalism by its nature is more diffuse and less focused. That's why it can take some concrete cause like Social Security to make it seem like an organized force; absent a clear mission, the Left can seem like 20 sled dogs all going in different directions.

Anyway, I get tired of the whole "the Right is more together, doesn't whine as much, etc." thing. They whine all the time -- working the refs is part 1 of their game plan. Part 2 is shooting the refs who won't be bullied or bought, or hiring their own refs (hence, Fox News), and part 1 partly works because of the threat of part 2. The Left mostly won't do part 2, because it actually believes in things like balance of power, an independent media, etc., which is why their attempts to work the refs come off as more ineffectual. I agree that I'd like to see a more focused and tough-minded Left, but it's very hard to be in the position of trying to play by the rules -- trying to argue for the importance of rules in the first place -- when you're up against people who think rules are for pussies.

xpost -- Hunter said all that in fewer words...

In a perverse way I hope this happens.

Oh, FUCK YEAH.

But I'm holding that sentiment until I've fought good and hard and the last of my effort has run down the gutter.

xpost

Which is why it won't happen. Everyone would stop getting married.

Overturning Griswold is on par with re-enacting and ruling in favor of racial segregation laws.. in the degree of over-ridiculousness department.

The saddest thing about all of this is how much MORE ignored the Iraq war's slow failure will become.

Yeah, this does give the Washington-obsessed media an exciting football game to watch all summer.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

xpost -- Santorum is already looking one-term at this point, to be honest.

ROFFLE.

...gypsy and Hunter are both right w/r/t the "collective" spirit of the Left and how, unfortunately, that can translate into herding kittens. I guess I'm really just asking: "how can you rally the troops while NOT becoming authoritarian?"

xpost: that Santorum quote boggles the mind. The problem is that many many people hear that and go "hm. hur...he's RIGHT you know." What's most aggravating is that many people are perfectly willing to entertain the Slippery Slope argument as it pertains to decadent moral values but NOT when it alludes to neo-fascism (heavy-handed, there). Like, "I can TOTALLY see a future where fags rape children and women fuck donkeys on the street" v. "How DARE you suggest that America's gradual unilateral centralization of power might some day resemble the tyranny it was founded to oppose?"

"How DARE you suggest that America's gradual unilateral centralization of power might some day resemble the tyranny it was founded to oppose?"

...except a lot of right-wingers were saying this *already* about the government? It's this combination of replicating the sins of the 'enemy' as well as other factors which will make what happens next so interesting. That's why I'm interested in Podhoretz's comment so much -- his politics freak me out in particular *and yet* he also flatly predicts a massive split if someone too divisive is put forth.

Guys like George Lakoff have been talking about this for a while. He even wrote a nice little handbook about it.

Groups on the right tend to have certain advantages to a top-down organization approach since so much of what they're on about is about Maintaining Authority, as well as spreading their particular moral code(which includes Authority as the top of it).

On the left, you still have the Narcissism of Small Differences going on, where people don't know that several different stripes of things are really going towards the same ends. The Right got over this problem 40 years ago.

Plus, it comes down to beliefs about Authority; does one submit or does one question?

I don't see why the president can't choose the most conservative person possible. The Democrats will never -- never -- filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. It was fine to do it with appellate judges because nobody cares about those but advocates. This is going to be the major news story of the summer, and the simple argument that the president and the nominee deserve an up-or-down vote will trump any of the more sophisticated nonsense that might be thrown at them.

What might conceivably derail any nominee won't be policy, their view on Roe, or anything like that. It will be past, personal stuff. It's always personal stuff. Anybody remember the effort to deny Rhenquist the job as chief by floating the story that he had worked to suppress black voters in Arizona -- and that he'd lived in a restricted community?

Remember, all the Dems need is a few wimpy Republicans to go weak-kneed. On the other hand, it's far from clear that the Dem senators up for reelection in the Bush states -- Nelson of Nebraska, Nelson of Florida and Landrieu of Louisiana especially -- will be comfortable voting "no."

Some interesting assumptions I'm not agreeing with entirely here. But I think the killer touch is this 'wimpy, weak-kneed' claim. That suggests fear of the possibilities in the guise of bravado.

Lyra Silvertongue to thread.

must pass drug & litmus test

Most of the time, both houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats.

http://sportsmed.starwave.com/i/magazine/new/031208_yakov.jpg

WHATTA CAHNTRY!

Yeah yeah yeah. O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, and you can point to plenty of Republican predecessors who ended up much more liberal than anyone expected. Problem is, the James Dobson wing of the GOP is verrrrry aware of that too, and very pissed off about it. They've made it clear they don't want another Souter or O'Connor, and I think y'all are dreaming if you're expecting one.

Anyway, is there a minimum age for Supreme Court candidates?

I'm rather scared by the possibility of anyone younger than 50 being appointed.. haha. (I know it's irrational to say that...)

Nah, it won't be a Dobson clone. But it'll still be someone they're pretty sure will vote against Roe and gay marriage and labor rights and environmental regulations. It'll be someone more like Scalia than like O'Connor. And sure, the Democrats will scream and yell, because they have to, but they can't actually stop it. At most, they'll be able to kick up enough shit about an initial nominee to get someone just slightly less objectionable put up. But I'm not banking on that; Bush hates to throw people overboard, which supposedly scans as loyalty but is really just egomania.

Wha? You? GET RIGHT OUT OF TOWN.

Yay!

And I was referring to John Roberts, the SECOND guy on the page, as the looney.. not the first. Oops.

ANYWAY: isn't this more of a problem than an opportunity for the repubs? as long as they were teasing but not delivering, they kept both halves of their vote, but as soon as they are at last genuinely in a POSITION to deliver, they lose half that vote either way?

Well, right, people do evolve. Sometimes. It's just that they have this whole crop of potential nominees that they've basically grown in vats at the Federalist Society, and as a group they are not just sympathetic to conservative views but are actual hard-right ideologues. That makes them different than Souter and O'Connor and others before them, who might have had general leanings but were never ideological per se.

Ideologues can change too. But they tend to view philosophical constancy as a moral virtue (see some of Scalia's rants on this, or Bork criticizing O'Connor for not having a "judicial philosophy"), which makes departure from the ideological line about as likely as a Cardinal suddenly deciding gay marriage is OK. Possible. Just not something to hang a lot of hope on.

If it obviously weren't so fraught, I could look at this situation much less emotionally. As it stands, however, some realpolitik part of me has been waiting for something like this for a while. Armageddon for the GOP, not necessarily -- but I wouldn't rule it out as being a key step.

Well, right, people do evolve.

Oh no, you misunderstand -- I'm not talking about being in office, I'm talking about what happens during the confirmation process.

But the people driving the anti-abortion train don't care. They're sure that they're right and that God will reward them, no matter what the voters do.

In which case you see a new vision among more than a few GOP members that the bargain they made a long while back -- however implicitly -- is about to bite them on the ass. As it stands, I say again -- a lot of the talk you're going to see from the right about this isn't triumphalism but a massive attempt to convince themselves as much as others. And it might not work.

that said, i hope they let santorum run his mouth about removing the veil around people's homelives. if that isn't the uncrossable line between hands-off and hands-on conservativism, i don't know what could be at this point.

I dunno; i think both nominations are going to be fucked, since the people who're doing the nominating want it ALL, and fuck y'all who may not like that, etc.

I mean, that's perfectly rational to think that. But how many times do we have to restate the obvious?

So one must trust the States and the individual communities to be the moderate voice -- I mean there's no way California or New York S. or Washington or Oregon or Mass. or VT or NH would cave on some pissant ruling wrt contraception (interstate trade, rights of free passage) or even abortion.

Wait till the 'Quist dies on the bench. Then it's panic time...

yeah, but remember, we live in interesting times where those who previously made noise 'bout states rights don't particularly give a fuck about stopming on them now since they're in power. For example, Ashcroft going after the medical marijuana & death w/ dignity laws that Oregon passed thru multiple voter referenda over the last few years.

Except, of course, that it was Republican Orrin Hatch, then head of the Senate Judiciary Commitee, who suggested her to Clinton.

This did not play out so well when Sean Hannity was talking to Orrin Hatch, going over how they "didn't want another Ruth Bader Ginsburg on their hands".

turns out if you measure "activist judges" by the number of times each one has voted to overturn existing law, Clarence Thomas wins #1. Ginsburg is #9.

...In short, it's the liberal judges who are most conservative about upending established law, and the conservative judges who are most willing to overturn a Congressional majority by judicial edict.

yeah, but this isn't about what actually happened now, is it? they just wanna try to find any club they can use to beat down any politico not toeing the Party line.

Reagan detractors had been saying that same exact thing for 8 years in the 80s. As have Clinton detractors in the 90s.

Gonzalez makes sense given his relationship with Bush, although it would be surprising given the amount of recusal he'd have

Like father, like son. (one would hope?)

*I won't make any obvious Canadian pop punk jokes, I promise*

oh yes, how foolish. just like the 90 Senators that approved him. wait, why was it foolish again?

Democratic Leader Discounts a Filibuster
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, July 11 - Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said Monday that he did not foresee a filibuster against President Bush's choice for the Supreme Court, but warned that Democrats would not hesitate to slow the confirmation if they found the process or the nominee objectionable.

"I don't anticipate a filibuster, but I am not going to shy away from making sure that we have adequate time to explain our position," Mr. Reid said as Senate leaders from both parties prepared to meet with Mr. Bush on Tuesday morning to discuss the vacancy.

Mr. Reid also said Democrats would try to cooperate in complying with the president's request that the seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor be filled by Oct. 1. But he pointed out that Justice O'Connor has agreed to remain on the court until her replacement is confirmed and that only six justices are needed for a quorum.

Mr. Reid's comments to reporters were part of the political maneuvering over the vacancy that accelerated as Congress returned from its Fourth of July recess, bringing lawmakers together for the first time since Justice O'Connor announced her intention to retire.

At the White House, Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's spokesman, portrayed Tuesday's breakfast meeting between the president and four Senate leaders as just one aspect of the administration's efforts to seek the thoughts of most senators both before and after a nomination is made.

"The president is not prejudging anything," Mr. McClellan said of the meeting. "He wants to hear what their views are and hear what they have to say as we move forward on a Supreme Court nominee."

In light of speculation about the possible retirement of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist or other members of the court, Mr. McClellan said the administration was "prepared for additional vacancies if they should occur."

In addition to Mr. Reid, those scheduled to attend the White House meeting are Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader; Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee; and Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee.

Mr. Frist said he intended to use the session to "urge my Democratic colleagues to keep overzealous outside interest groups at bay and not allow them to turn this nomination process into a circus."

"The nation deserves better," Mr. Frist said in a statement. "We should work toward a dignified hearing process that allows opportunity for fair questioning but moves toward confirmation - not confrontation."

Mr. McClellan said the president would welcome nominee suggestions from lawmakers, but did not say whether the president intended to share the identities of prospective candidates with the lawmakers. Mr. Reid and other Democrats have suggested that the president do so to weed out potential candidates who could stir strong opposition.

But Mr. Specter said he did not think Mr. Bush would provide a list of candidates. "Do I expect the president to give specific names to the four of us? No," Mr. Specter said. "I expect the president to give us a name when he is ready."

Mr. Reid said he would not consider the Tuesday session a failure if the president did not discuss individual candidates with the lawmakers. But he said any names should come from the White House because Democratic interest in an individual could lower support among Republicans. Mr. Reid said he also saw the meeting as an opportunity to establish ground rules on both sides.

"I want to have some idea of what he expects from us and give us an idea of what we can expect to see from him," Mr. Reid said.

Members of both parties say the outreach by the White House on the court opening has been impressive, but Republicans were quick to point out that it is voluntary.

"They are reaching out, both to Republicans and Democrats," said Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee. "And I think it's nice that they do, although the Constitution doesn't require that."

He suggested that the president solicit either names of candidates or characteristics that lawmakers would like to see in a nominee.

"And who knows?" Mr. Grassley said in an interview on MSNBC. "Out of a meeting like that may come some new names that haven't popped up yet."

Mr. Specter said he thought practical matters like the scheduling of hearings could be addressed at the White House session. Lawmakers and senior aides say confirmation hearings are not likely to begin before Sept. 6, when Congress is scheduled to return from its August recess.

Mr. Specter said that he was remaining flexible and that the timetable would ultimately be determined by when the nomination was made.

Mr. Leahy joined Mr. Reid in expressing the view that the Senate should move deliberately. He said he personally intended to read all of the decisions and speeches of any nominee if the candidate is a sitting judge.

"I don't want to hurry the president into a precipitous choice," Mr. Leahy said, "but I don't want the Senate to be hurried into a precipitous decision."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/071205/brownback.html

Brownback set to hold meeting with Gonzales
By Geoff Earle

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a conservative member of the Judiciary Committee, plans to meet this week with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee.

Asked whether Gonzales would be a good nominee, Brownback replied, “I need to talk with him about his view of the Constitution to tell. That’s what I hope to do this week.”

Brownback rejected the notion that the meeting is premature: “If people are throwing names around, I think it’s timely to talk with individuals in the process.” President Bush has defended Gonzales, whom he called a great friend, after conservative groups spoke out against his possible nomination to the high court...

either way, shit will happen no matter what the rhetoric on any side is now.

Bush Listens to Senators on Court Nominees

by DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
54 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush and his aides listened to suggestions from Democrats and Republicans on Tuesday about candidates for filling a Supreme Court vacancy, but did not tip his hand about his favorites. Asked later how close he was to making a decision, Bush told reporters, "Closer today than I was yesterday."

"I'm going to be deliberate in the process," Bush told reporters later.

[...]

Asked about Democrats' objections to specific candidates said to be under consideration, McClellan said, "No individual should have veto power over a president's selection."

[...]

Specter took a shot at interest groups on the right and left, suggesting that they are "vastly overstating" their influence in the selection process and that, at times, their input is both "counterproductive and insulting."

He also expressed his desire that Bush consider nominating someone who is not currently part of the federal court system.

[...]

Frist, who said he used the morning meeting to insist that Democrats treat Bush's nominee with respect, said Bush and the lawmakers discussed both the confirmation process as well as the type of nominee the parties would like to see the president name.

"This consultative process is well under way," Frist said, adding that Bush and his advisers have contacted more than 60 senators, each member of the Judiciary Committee and that more than half or two-thirds of Democrats.

Oh yeah, and his wife wants him to appoint a woman. Are there any rightwing hispanic female appellate judges out there?

In any event, I think you misunderstand Reid's statement, which combines several of the tactics he has somewhat successfully employed thus far - it sets the agenda by defining the Dems before the other side does so, and couches a threat in the veil of make-nice. He's telling Bush in no uncertain terms that the filibuster is an option ("adequate time to explain our position" is a genteel way of describing a ten-letter procedure that begins with an "f"), except he's doing it in a fashion that suggests to the public that the Dems prefer to work across the aisle, a prerequisite to fighting, and that places the blame for any confrontation on Bush, because he picked someone that made the Dems do something they didn't want to do. You don't allow the other side an opportunity to suggest that you planned to attack any offer they made. And you don't sell the American public on how extreme a nominee is without first suggesting that you'd be amenable to the majority of choices.

(xposts)

Yeah I interpret that similarly, but the GOP spin will be "They PROMISED not to filibuster etc."

oh yes, let's drop an effective tactic because it will make the GoPee look like pussies when they try to respond

"This fight is not about seven radical nominees; it's about clearing the way for a Supreme Court nominee who only needs 51 votes, instead of 60 votes. They want a Clarence Thomas, not a Sandra Day O'Connor or Anthony Kennedy or David Souter. George Bush wants to turn the Senate into a second House of Representatives, a rubberstamp for his right wing agenda and radical judges. That's not how America works."

I hope you're right, gabbneb, but I still fear the longwayaround to capitulation.

Re: Clinton. I disagree. Nixon, Reagan and Bush were worse.

The Reaganites dreamed of enacting as much Reaganism as Clinton did.

Hispanic Judges on Dems' List for Bush

By DEB RIECHMANN and DAVID ESPO, Associated Press Writer
18 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Top Senate Democrats floated the names of potential candidates for the Supreme Court on Tuesday in a meeting with President Bush, describing them as the type of nominee who could avoid a fierce confirmation battle.

Several officials familiar with the discussion said Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Ed Prado of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, both of whom are Hispanic, were among the names mentioned as Bush met with key lawmakers from both parties to discuss the first high court vacancy in 11 years.

[...]

The meeting came at a time when the president is under pressure from conservatives who want a court that will reverse precedent on abortion rights, affirmative action, homosexual rights and other issues. Some conservatives have criticized Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is close to Bush and frequently mentioned as a potential candidate, questioning whether he would vote to overturn the landmark 1973 court ruling that gave women the constitutional right to an abortion.

For their part, Democrats are urging Bush to seek a "consensus candidate," one who would win confirmation without a bitter struggle. But they have relatively little leverage in purely numerical terms. Republicans hold 55 seats in the Senate and can confirm any of Bush's picks unless Democrats mount a filibuster. The White House would need 60 votes to overcome that.

Democrats have done extensive research on dozens of potential replacements for O'Connor and the names of Sotomayor and Prado have emerged, along with others, as among those viewed as acceptable. Leahy suggested the names in the meeting, although Reid's presence signaled his approval.

According to an official government Web site, Sotomayor was named a U.S. District Court judge in 1991 by former President George H.W. Bush, the president's father, and confirmed in August 1992. President Clinton nominated her for a seat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997, and she was confirmed in 1998.

President Reagan nominated Prado to a seat on the U.S. District Court in 1984. The current President Bush picked him for his current post in 2003, and he was confirmed on a vote of 97-0.

Frist praised Bush for reaching out to Democrats, saying that what the administration is doing "is pretty unprecedented if you look back in history. He is reaching out aggressively. He has contacted — he or his staff have contacted over 60 United States senators, each of the members of the Judiciary Committee, over half or two-thirds of the Democrats."

Democrats said that was fine — as far as it went.

"This certainly is a good first or second step," Reid said at a news conference outside the White House. "This process needs to move forward. And I was impressed with the fact the president said it would; there will be more meetings, consultations."

Officials familiar with the meeting said Reid was more blunt in private, telling Bush he didn't want to wind up reading about the president's eventual pick in the newspaper without having had a chance to offer his views beforehand.

[...]

Bush and Senate Republicans have said they hope to have O'Connor's replacement confirmed and sworn in before the court convenes for its new term in October.

it's not like any of their suggestions will be taken seriously, of course, but it's another showing of an attempt at good faith by one side.

but, hey, they found a conservative female hispanic appellate(sp?) judge, one even put first in place by Bush I. Color me surprised.

But as for skeptics who point out that presiding over a TV small-claims court is worlds away from sitting on the highest court in the land, Vonnegut answered: "There is no difference. She refers to the law again and again. American law is American law."

hahaha

Rehnquist yells at nearby reporters, who're hovering vulture-like: "I AIN'T GOING ANYWHERE, BITCHEZ! SUCK ON DEEZ DROOPY NUTZ!"

another point in her favor for Bush - she's a Southern Comforter