This is the big news in DC today (I'm pretty sure Iran could test a nuke today and no one would notice), hope everyone is ready for a protracted battle for the next Supreme Court nomination. All the advocacy groups have been getting ready for this for years and if you thought the debates over the regular judicial appointments were heated, partisan, and downright nasty you ain't seen nothing yet.
Begun, the court wars have.
Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:
*This* puts text in bold.
_This_ puts text in italics.
bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.
To add a live URL, "Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/ (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.
The big name I keep hearing is Michael Mukasey. Religious conservative, law and order judge from NY.
This is very likely to bring civil war to this country. Fortune has smiled upon us for we have the second amendment.
All the advocacy groups have been getting ready for this for years
Now is the time for all good bloggers to come to the aid of their country, and to show Ralph Neas and the "advocacy groups" who this country belongs to. Maybe they'll find that there's a new sheriff in town this time around.
Consider now in retrospect -
Might it have been a good idea to seriously explore Justice Souter's judicial philosophy during his confirmation, rather than spending the whole time dealing with Senator Kennedy's hysterical ravings about racism and people being attacked with coat hangers?
Not this time around, boys and girls.
I agree with Kaus, a protracted Supreme Court battle is just what the President needs to give him time to make progress on the important war.
PD Shaw,
Perhaps he'll call Brown and Pryor to the WH for "discussions". After all, they've been through the JC recently and were allowed to the floor. Nothing "extraordinary" about them, right?
It would be great fun to watch heads explode if he did that.
Some of the changes the court as a whole is experiencing concern the use of DNA evidence, which has reversed a lot of really, really serious convictions. Life taking is not casual, and juries wrestle over these decisions with the expectation that the evidence is the best there is.
The court is receiving the reverberations of discovering that a lot of evidence that courts have decided on and that juries have been presented, have been expedient for the prosecutorial systems rather than based on serious and honest research.
After pondering this for a bit I think Justice Sandra Day O'Conner did us a big favor. It has long been said that the chances are there would be at minimum two nominations and appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States this Presidential term. The odds in favor of this position have certainly increased. After thinking about it I'm certainly in favor of replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Conner first then dealing with an appointment for Chief Justice William H. Rhenquist at a later date. Given Chief Justice Rhenquist's health condition and age it is highly unlikely he will serve the term of this administration. Of course I could be wrong here but I'll play the odds. I'll consider this the warm up since a nomination for his replacement as well as the nomination for first chair will certainly be one heck of a debate.
Biographies of Current Members of the Supreme Court of the United States
(80) William H Rhenquist - Oct 1, 1924 (app. by Nixon, app. Chief by Reagan)
(85) John Paul Stevens - Apr 20, 1920 (app. by Ford)
(75) Sandra Day O'Conner - Mar 26, 1930 (app. by Reagan, resigned)
(69) Antonin Scalia - Mar 11, 1936 (app. by Reagan)
(69) Anthony M. Kennedy - Mar 23, 1936 (app. by Reagan)
(65) David Hackett Souter - Sept 17, 1939 (app. by Bush)
(57) Clarence Thomas - Jun 23, 1948 (app. by Bush)
(72) Ruth Bader Ginsberg - Mar 15, 1933 (app. by Clinton)
(66) Stephen G. Breyer - Aug 15, 1938 (app. by Clinton)
Less we forget President Reagan enjoyed the lime light of having appointed three Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States and a first chair (Chief Justice William H. Rhenquist).
As it stands now, is there a possibility of a third retirement? Justice John Paul Stevens is currently 85 years of age and was appointed by President Ford in 1975. I'm not so sure that he has the stamina of Senator Strom Thurmond who served for 48 years to ripe old age of 100. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is no spring chicken either but I'll lay odds she serves throughout this Presidential term. I'm also a bit curious as to how egos on the bench might play out concerning a first chair replacement. I would suspect it wouldn't matter to those currently on the bench but one never really knows.
After pondering this for a bit I think Justice Sandra Day O'Conner did us a big favor. It has long been said that the chances are there would be at minimum two nominations and appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States this Presidential term. The odds in favor of this position have certainly increased. After thinking about it I'm certainly in favor of replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Conner first then dealing with an appointment for Chief Justice William H. Rhenquist at a later date. Given Chief Justice Rhenquist's health condition and age it is highly unlikely he will serve the term of this administration. Of course I could be wrong here but I'll play the odds. I'll consider this the warm up since a nomination for his replacement as well as the nomination for first chair will certainly be one heck of a debate.
Biographies of Current Members of the Supreme Court of the United States
(80) William H Rhenquist - Oct 1, 1924 (app. by Nixon, app. Chief by Reagan)
(85) John Paul Stevens - Apr 20, 1920 (app. by Ford)
(75) Sandra Day O'Conner - Mar 26, 1930 (app. by Reagan, resigned)
(69) Antonin Scalia - Mar 11, 1936 (app. by Reagan)
(69) Anthony M. Kennedy - Mar 23, 1936 (app. by Reagan)
(65) David Hackett Souter - Sept 17, 1939 (app. by Bush)
(57) Clarence Thomas - Jun 23, 1948 (app. by Bush)
(72) Ruth Bader Ginsberg - Mar 15, 1933 (app. by Clinton)
(66) Stephen G. Breyer - Aug 15, 1938 (app. by Clinton)
Less we forget President Reagan enjoyed the lime light of having appointed three Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States and a first chair (Chief Justice William H. Rhenquist).
As it stands now, is there a possibility of a third retirement? Justice John Paul Stevens is currently 85 years of age and was appointed by President Ford in 1975. I'm not so sure that he has the stamina of Senator Strom Thurmond who served for 48 years to ripe old age of 100. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is no spring chicken either but I'll lay odds she serves throughout this Presidential term. I'm also a bit curious as to how egos on the bench might play out concerning a first chair replacement. I would suspect it wouldn't matter to those currently on the bench but one never really knows.
Has anyone noted this strange phenomenon:
The Democrats have deployed another lame slogan for the occasion, calling on Bush to "bring the country together" - as if Bush could magically bring the Democratic Party together, let alone the country. But anyhoo, they want the President to consult beforehand with Dems, which means Harry Reid.
The strange thing is that Reid has already made public suggestions - Lindsey Graham, Mel Martinez, Mike Crapo, and Mike DeWine. And other Dems are heaping praise on these "worthy" choices.
All four are about as Pro-Life as you can get - 100% pro-life voting records, 0% ratings from NARAL - and the top Dem is pushing their names out in front. This is astounding to me. Does this mean that NOW and NARAL and Patricia Ireland are being told to go screw themselves, and stay out of this fight?
All of them come from states with Republican governors, so Reid can't even hope for a Democratic interim appointment to the Senate if one of these guys moves up to SCOTUS. So what's the deal?
Are they covering up the embarrassment of the fact that the Dem's best shot at getting a pro-choice nominee was Alberto Gonzales, who they've trashing as pro-torture for months?