The Battle Is Commenced: There Is No Turning Back
I’ve never been in the military, but I feel I understand enough about war to make reasonable "guesstimations" on some things regarding it. Once the battle is commenced neither side will depart until there is a clear winner. Both Marcie and I have warned for weeks that the war for the courts is about to heat up. A regular site we visit, ConfirmThem.com, has the newest news regarding the president’s judicial nominees. They have a wonderful announcement on their site that reads:
http://www.confirmthem.com/
"Rehnquist will step down in four weeks"
This war just got hotter. And now is not the time for the Republicans to misplace their spines. Their backbone will be needed in this next round. If you all thought that the slanderous, defamatory attacks couldn’t get much worse, just wait, watch, and see. You ain’t seen nothing yet. Come on, we can all say it together: "Extraordinary Circumstances".
When word reaches the Democrats (I’m sure it already has) that Rehnquist has been confirmed in stepping down in four weeks, they’ll go into full-stubborn mode. Nothing concerning a judge is going to get through, unless it is Judges Brown and Pryor, which they agreed to give their votes for. We all know about that compromise, and what it entails. I don’t like it. It was bad. It was stupid of the Seditious Seven to do what they did. It was foolish of Frist to trust them to do any sort of negotiating on behalf of the party on this issue. But we get three. Owens is done and on her way. Brown and Pryor are still waiting, and they will get their votes.
But when that is all said and done, no matter who the president nominates for the Supreme Court, the Democrats are going to dig in, and they’re going to give an inch. Unless it’s another Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, etc., the Republicans will be in the fight of their lives. Now, "Feddie" at ConfirmThem is predicting that Pres. Bush will nominate Judge Michael W. McConnell to the Chief Justice’s vacancy.
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=662
Michael W. McConnell, Presidential Professor of Law, Judge, 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
B.A. with honors, Michigan State University
J.D. with honors, Order of the Coif, law review comment editor; University of Chicago Law School
Professor McConnell joined the faculty in 1997 after teaching at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years, where he was William B. Graham Professor of Law. Prior to his teaching career, Professor McConnell served as assistant to the solicitor general with the U.S. Department of Justice, assistant general counsel for the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, and clerked for Chief Judge J. Skelly Wright, District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He also clerked for Justice William J. Brennan of the U.S. Supreme Court. Among the country’s most distinguished scholars in the fields of constitutional law and theory, with a specialty in the religion clauses of the First Amendment, Professor McConnell has conducted 11 arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. He is widely published in the fields of church-state relations and the First Amendment. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and was sworn in as a judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on January 3, 2003.
Teaches constitutional law, family law, state and local government, religion and the First Amendment
Scholarship Highlights
Freedom From Persecution or Protection of the Rights of Conscience?: A Critique of Justice Scalia's Historical Arguments in City of Boerne v. Flores, 39 William and Mary Law Review 819 (1998).
Equal Treatment and Religious Discrimination in Equal Treatment of Religion in a Pluralistic Society, Stephen V. Monsma and J. Christopher Soper, eds. (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998).
Institutions and Interpretation: A Critique of City of Boerne v. Flores, 111 Harvard Law Review 153 (1997).
The Importance of Humility in Judicial Review: A Comment on Ronald Dworkin's 'Moral Reading' of the Constitution, 65 Fordham Law Review 1269 (1997).
The Right to Die and the Jurisprudence of Tradition, 1997 Utah Law Review 665.
Establishment and Toleration in Edmund Burke's 'Constitution of Freedom' 1996 Supreme Court Review 275.
Segregation and the Original Understanding--A Reply to Professor Maltz, 13 Constitutional Commentary 233 (1996).
Originalism and the Desegregation Decisions, 81 Virginia Law Review 947 (1995).
The Originalist Justification for Brown: A Reply to Professor Klarman, 81 Virginia Law Review 1937 (1995).
The Forgotten Constitutional Moment, 11 Const. Comm. 115, (1994).
"Believers As Equal Citizens," Law and Religion: Obligations of Democratic Citizenship and Demands of Faith Symposium, Brown University (April, 1997).
McConnell’s got some of his own problems, though. Andrew at ConfirmThem has posted up some quotes for him, and notes that he seems to prefer a more activist-oriented role on the courts.
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=663
McConnell’s appeals court nomination was strongly supported by liberal academics such as Lawrence Tribe and Cass Sunstein, which is enough to at least give me some pause.
Also, Judge McConnell seems inclined toward an activist role for the courts in regulating social policy, such as marriage laws. It appears from the hearing report that he would strike down laws against polygamy, for example, as a violation of First Amendment religious freedom. This would overturn Supreme Court precedent going back to 1878.
Regarding Roe v. Wade, he said at his hearing that it is "as settled as any issue can be in constitutional law," and that the right to an abortion reflects "the consensus of the American people." But characterizing Roe as being as settled as Marbury v. Madison or Brown v. Board of Education seems like quite a stretch.
OK, more than "some problems". I sit corrected. And it would make no sense for Pres. Bush to seek out a man like this. He is not the textualist, or originalist, that the president has preferred in his previous nominations, such as Judges Owens, Pryor, and Brown. I personally think one of two things are going to happen, and I prefer the first over the second.
The first thing would be when Rehnquist steps down that Pres. Bush nominate Justice Scalia for the vacancy. Not only would it be putting the best qualified justice where they need to be, but then another nomination has to be made. I believe it will be J. Michael Luttig, a conservative judge from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Federal Judicial Service:U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on April 23, 1991, to a new seat created by 104 Stat. 5089; Confirmed by the Senate on July 26, 1991, and received commission on August 2, 1991.
Education:Washington and Lee University, B.A., 1976
University of Virginia School of Law, J.D., 1981
Professional Career:Assistant counsel, Office of the President of the United States, 1981-1982
Law clerk, Hon. Antonin Scalia, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1982-1983
Law clerk, Chief Justice Warren Burger, Supreme Court of the United States, 1983-1984
Special assistant to the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of United States, 1984-1985
Private practice, Washington, DC, 1985-1989
Principal deputy assistant attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1989-1990
Assistant attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1990-1991
Counselor to the attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1990-1991
There’s the credentials of Judge Luttig. He also has experience with the Supreme Court, having clerked for Scalia and Burger, and served as a special assistant to Burger, as well. He has DOJ experience as well. The man knows the courts better than most nominees, and would be a priceless addition to the high court. And what’s better is that he is needed on the court. The more originalists on the court, the better for America.
People that are textualists, or originalists, like Justice Scalia, and Judge Luttig don’t read things into what isn’t in the Constitution. Scalia has done his fair share of chastising the court for some of it’s more lame-brained decisions. (If anyone likes to sit and look into the mind of a man like Scalia, pick up a book called "Scalia Dissents" written by Kevin A. Ring. It’s a superb book.) A mind like Scalia’s needs another match on the court for the sheer fact that a level of balance needs to be maintained.
I’m not talking a conservative/liberal balance. The court should never be a target of politics, or allow politics to invade it’s territory. That’s how the court got screwed up in the first place. It needs to return to it’s proper duties. Scalia in the Chief Justice’s seat would do that. And so would the appointment of Luttig to the vacancy.
The option I dislike—the second of the two I mentioned above—would be for Pres. Bush to nominate Luttig for the Rehnquist vacancy. I’m a purist. That position on the court should go to a serving Associate Justice. I like Luttig a lot, but I’m of the mindset that you get to that position through experience. Scalia has more. It’s that simple.
We know that Pres. Bush isn’t going to appoint one of the other six; they’re activists, and he spent plenty of time talking about the need to get non-activist judges to the bench last year. It was the party platform that delivered three more Senators to the Senate, the president back into the White House, and soundly defeated the obstructing Minority Leader of the Senate, Tom Daschle. America cares about her court system when they see so much Hell caused by the constant and consistent judicial misinterpretations of the Constitution.
Publius II
I’ve never been in the military, but I feel I understand enough about war to make reasonable "guesstimations" on some things regarding it. Once the battle is commenced neither side will depart until there is a clear winner. Both Marcie and I have warned for weeks that the war for the courts is about to heat up. A regular site we visit, ConfirmThem.com, has the newest news regarding the president’s judicial nominees. They have a wonderful announcement on their site that reads:
http://www.confirmthem.com/
"Rehnquist will step down in four weeks"
This war just got hotter. And now is not the time for the Republicans to misplace their spines. Their backbone will be needed in this next round. If you all thought that the slanderous, defamatory attacks couldn’t get much worse, just wait, watch, and see. You ain’t seen nothing yet. Come on, we can all say it together: "Extraordinary Circumstances".
When word reaches the Democrats (I’m sure it already has) that Rehnquist has been confirmed in stepping down in four weeks, they’ll go into full-stubborn mode. Nothing concerning a judge is going to get through, unless it is Judges Brown and Pryor, which they agreed to give their votes for. We all know about that compromise, and what it entails. I don’t like it. It was bad. It was stupid of the Seditious Seven to do what they did. It was foolish of Frist to trust them to do any sort of negotiating on behalf of the party on this issue. But we get three. Owens is done and on her way. Brown and Pryor are still waiting, and they will get their votes.
But when that is all said and done, no matter who the president nominates for the Supreme Court, the Democrats are going to dig in, and they’re going to give an inch. Unless it’s another Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, etc., the Republicans will be in the fight of their lives. Now, "Feddie" at ConfirmThem is predicting that Pres. Bush will nominate Judge Michael W. McConnell to the Chief Justice’s vacancy.
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=662
Michael W. McConnell, Presidential Professor of Law, Judge, 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
B.A. with honors, Michigan State University
J.D. with honors, Order of the Coif, law review comment editor; University of Chicago Law School
Professor McConnell joined the faculty in 1997 after teaching at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years, where he was William B. Graham Professor of Law. Prior to his teaching career, Professor McConnell served as assistant to the solicitor general with the U.S. Department of Justice, assistant general counsel for the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, and clerked for Chief Judge J. Skelly Wright, District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He also clerked for Justice William J. Brennan of the U.S. Supreme Court. Among the country’s most distinguished scholars in the fields of constitutional law and theory, with a specialty in the religion clauses of the First Amendment, Professor McConnell has conducted 11 arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. He is widely published in the fields of church-state relations and the First Amendment. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and was sworn in as a judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on January 3, 2003.
Teaches constitutional law, family law, state and local government, religion and the First Amendment
Scholarship Highlights
Freedom From Persecution or Protection of the Rights of Conscience?: A Critique of Justice Scalia's Historical Arguments in City of Boerne v. Flores, 39 William and Mary Law Review 819 (1998).
Equal Treatment and Religious Discrimination in Equal Treatment of Religion in a Pluralistic Society, Stephen V. Monsma and J. Christopher Soper, eds. (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998).
Institutions and Interpretation: A Critique of City of Boerne v. Flores, 111 Harvard Law Review 153 (1997).
The Importance of Humility in Judicial Review: A Comment on Ronald Dworkin's 'Moral Reading' of the Constitution, 65 Fordham Law Review 1269 (1997).
The Right to Die and the Jurisprudence of Tradition, 1997 Utah Law Review 665.
Establishment and Toleration in Edmund Burke's 'Constitution of Freedom' 1996 Supreme Court Review 275.
Segregation and the Original Understanding--A Reply to Professor Maltz, 13 Constitutional Commentary 233 (1996).
Originalism and the Desegregation Decisions, 81 Virginia Law Review 947 (1995).
The Originalist Justification for Brown: A Reply to Professor Klarman, 81 Virginia Law Review 1937 (1995).
The Forgotten Constitutional Moment, 11 Const. Comm. 115, (1994).
"Believers As Equal Citizens," Law and Religion: Obligations of Democratic Citizenship and Demands of Faith Symposium, Brown University (April, 1997).
McConnell’s got some of his own problems, though. Andrew at ConfirmThem has posted up some quotes for him, and notes that he seems to prefer a more activist-oriented role on the courts.
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=663
McConnell’s appeals court nomination was strongly supported by liberal academics such as Lawrence Tribe and Cass Sunstein, which is enough to at least give me some pause.
Also, Judge McConnell seems inclined toward an activist role for the courts in regulating social policy, such as marriage laws. It appears from the hearing report that he would strike down laws against polygamy, for example, as a violation of First Amendment religious freedom. This would overturn Supreme Court precedent going back to 1878.
Regarding Roe v. Wade, he said at his hearing that it is "as settled as any issue can be in constitutional law," and that the right to an abortion reflects "the consensus of the American people." But characterizing Roe as being as settled as Marbury v. Madison or Brown v. Board of Education seems like quite a stretch.
OK, more than "some problems". I sit corrected. And it would make no sense for Pres. Bush to seek out a man like this. He is not the textualist, or originalist, that the president has preferred in his previous nominations, such as Judges Owens, Pryor, and Brown. I personally think one of two things are going to happen, and I prefer the first over the second.
The first thing would be when Rehnquist steps down that Pres. Bush nominate Justice Scalia for the vacancy. Not only would it be putting the best qualified justice where they need to be, but then another nomination has to be made. I believe it will be J. Michael Luttig, a conservative judge from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Federal Judicial Service:U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on April 23, 1991, to a new seat created by 104 Stat. 5089; Confirmed by the Senate on July 26, 1991, and received commission on August 2, 1991.
Education:Washington and Lee University, B.A., 1976
University of Virginia School of Law, J.D., 1981
Professional Career:Assistant counsel, Office of the President of the United States, 1981-1982
Law clerk, Hon. Antonin Scalia, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1982-1983
Law clerk, Chief Justice Warren Burger, Supreme Court of the United States, 1983-1984
Special assistant to the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of United States, 1984-1985
Private practice, Washington, DC, 1985-1989
Principal deputy assistant attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1989-1990
Assistant attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1990-1991
Counselor to the attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1990-1991
There’s the credentials of Judge Luttig. He also has experience with the Supreme Court, having clerked for Scalia and Burger, and served as a special assistant to Burger, as well. He has DOJ experience as well. The man knows the courts better than most nominees, and would be a priceless addition to the high court. And what’s better is that he is needed on the court. The more originalists on the court, the better for America.
People that are textualists, or originalists, like Justice Scalia, and Judge Luttig don’t read things into what isn’t in the Constitution. Scalia has done his fair share of chastising the court for some of it’s more lame-brained decisions. (If anyone likes to sit and look into the mind of a man like Scalia, pick up a book called "Scalia Dissents" written by Kevin A. Ring. It’s a superb book.) A mind like Scalia’s needs another match on the court for the sheer fact that a level of balance needs to be maintained.
I’m not talking a conservative/liberal balance. The court should never be a target of politics, or allow politics to invade it’s territory. That’s how the court got screwed up in the first place. It needs to return to it’s proper duties. Scalia in the Chief Justice’s seat would do that. And so would the appointment of Luttig to the vacancy.
The option I dislike—the second of the two I mentioned above—would be for Pres. Bush to nominate Luttig for the Rehnquist vacancy. I’m a purist. That position on the court should go to a serving Associate Justice. I like Luttig a lot, but I’m of the mindset that you get to that position through experience. Scalia has more. It’s that simple.
We know that Pres. Bush isn’t going to appoint one of the other six; they’re activists, and he spent plenty of time talking about the need to get non-activist judges to the bench last year. It was the party platform that delivered three more Senators to the Senate, the president back into the White House, and soundly defeated the obstructing Minority Leader of the Senate, Tom Daschle. America cares about her court system when they see so much Hell caused by the constant and consistent judicial misinterpretations of the Constitution.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home