Nomination Fever: Let’s Put Some Of This To Rest
Welcome to another Monday morning where the president has, once again, raised the ire of the Left. Earlier this morning I posted up his new choice for Chief Justice is the same choice he had to replace O’Connor. That person, of course is Judge John G. Roberts. Roberts stated that he was "honored and humbled" for the "special opportunity" to be the 17th US Supreme Court Chief Justice.
But, the speculation has been rampant across the blogosphere for most of the morning as to who Pres. Bush will name. Of course, we at the Asylum agree that the front-runner should be Judge J. Michael Luttig. Luttig’s credentials show that he has the skill, and his past personal dealings with the court—such as recusing himself from a death sentence appeal from the man who killed his father—shows that he has the professionalism that is needed on the high court.
What I have seen this morning is a retread of speculative nominees that were presented prior to Roberts nomination. Those people include three senators first mentioned, and another senator new to the rumors.
Sen. John Kyl, from our state of Arizona, would make a decent addition to the high court. He has the education, and the experience. But the mitigating factor in his nomination would be similar with all senators. If they step down, the governor gets tppoint a replacement. And whereas the governor would have to choose someone from the appropriate party, it does not mean they will choose those that share the departing senator’s ideology. Arizona has one of the worst governor’s in the state’s history in Janet Napolitano. Napolitano would most assuredly appoint a liberal Republican.
Sen. Orrin Hatch comes from Utah, and like Sen. Kyl, he has the qualifications. His benefit is that Utah has a Republican governor, and would appoint a replacement in kind. What turns me off about Sen. Hatch is that in the past couple of years, he’s tried to distance himself from the solid conservative base in the Senate, has been critical of the president’s handling of the war on terror, and has been lax on the issue of illegal immigration. His views are what scares me when it comes to being appointed to the high court. I’m not sure he would be the non-activist we need on the court, and may end up being another Souter.
Sen. John Cornyn hails from Texas, and in my opinion, he would be the most qualified person to sit on the high court. Sen. Cornyn served as a District Court judge from 1984 to 1990, and served on the Texas Supreme Court from 1991 to 1998. Add that to the fact that Texas does have a Republican governor, and would replace Sen. Cornyn accordingly. He is on the record as opposing judicial activism, and has been one of a few senators that support the idea of calling judges "on the carpet" for engaging in activism that is contrary to law.
Sen. Sam Brownback is a newbie in the confirmation rumor mill. Hugh Hewitt made a case for him yesterday, and believes that as a sound textualist (which is what Marcie and I are; same with Scalia and Thomas) he would be a fine addition to the court. It’s true that he has the qualifications, like the three above, but he has the same problem that Sen. Kyl has. Kansas has a liberal Democrat governor, and we could expect a liberal Republican to be Sen. Brownback’s replacement.
All in all, I would prefer that no one out of the Senate be considered for the high court. We have a list that is long an plentiful with jurists that have made their names on the judiciary, and done it with honor and respect for the law. Those include:
J. Michael Luttig
Janice Rogers Brown
Priscilla Owens
Miguel Estrada
Emilio Garza
Alice Batchelder
Samuel Alito
William Pryor
That’s our short-list. These people are more than qualified to sit on the high court next to Thomas, and Scalia, and Roberts. And yes, I included Roberts because he is going to be confirmed. Too many people have looked into his records, and can find NOTHING that is controversial. The controversy against Roberts will come in the partisan efforts of the democrats to block him. Now, some say it will only be token opposition, and the war will be mounted on the next person the president appoints. Why? Simple. Roberts was taking O’Connor’s seat. People resolved themselves to the fact that O’Connor’s seat wouldn’t be filled by a woman. The rhetoric on the Left is now the president can change that mistake, and nominate a woman.
O’Connor’s seat doesn’t have a sign on it stating "for women only." Her seat goes to the best qualified jurist, man or woman. However, look back at that short-list. I’ve got three woman on that list, and each of them exceed O’Connor in ability and qualifications. The president, should he so choose to, can nominate one of them. My money’s sitting on Luttig, Owens, or Brown.
Publius II
ADDENDUM: FOX News is reporting that Roberts confirmation hearings will begin on either Thursday, or next Monday. And it is worth noting that Sen. Schumer has claimed that this move by the president "ups the stakes" for Roberts and the Supreme Court. Folks, read that as: "We're about to lose our last sanctuary of power."
Welcome to another Monday morning where the president has, once again, raised the ire of the Left. Earlier this morning I posted up his new choice for Chief Justice is the same choice he had to replace O’Connor. That person, of course is Judge John G. Roberts. Roberts stated that he was "honored and humbled" for the "special opportunity" to be the 17th US Supreme Court Chief Justice.
But, the speculation has been rampant across the blogosphere for most of the morning as to who Pres. Bush will name. Of course, we at the Asylum agree that the front-runner should be Judge J. Michael Luttig. Luttig’s credentials show that he has the skill, and his past personal dealings with the court—such as recusing himself from a death sentence appeal from the man who killed his father—shows that he has the professionalism that is needed on the high court.
What I have seen this morning is a retread of speculative nominees that were presented prior to Roberts nomination. Those people include three senators first mentioned, and another senator new to the rumors.
Sen. John Kyl, from our state of Arizona, would make a decent addition to the high court. He has the education, and the experience. But the mitigating factor in his nomination would be similar with all senators. If they step down, the governor gets tppoint a replacement. And whereas the governor would have to choose someone from the appropriate party, it does not mean they will choose those that share the departing senator’s ideology. Arizona has one of the worst governor’s in the state’s history in Janet Napolitano. Napolitano would most assuredly appoint a liberal Republican.
Sen. Orrin Hatch comes from Utah, and like Sen. Kyl, he has the qualifications. His benefit is that Utah has a Republican governor, and would appoint a replacement in kind. What turns me off about Sen. Hatch is that in the past couple of years, he’s tried to distance himself from the solid conservative base in the Senate, has been critical of the president’s handling of the war on terror, and has been lax on the issue of illegal immigration. His views are what scares me when it comes to being appointed to the high court. I’m not sure he would be the non-activist we need on the court, and may end up being another Souter.
Sen. John Cornyn hails from Texas, and in my opinion, he would be the most qualified person to sit on the high court. Sen. Cornyn served as a District Court judge from 1984 to 1990, and served on the Texas Supreme Court from 1991 to 1998. Add that to the fact that Texas does have a Republican governor, and would replace Sen. Cornyn accordingly. He is on the record as opposing judicial activism, and has been one of a few senators that support the idea of calling judges "on the carpet" for engaging in activism that is contrary to law.
Sen. Sam Brownback is a newbie in the confirmation rumor mill. Hugh Hewitt made a case for him yesterday, and believes that as a sound textualist (which is what Marcie and I are; same with Scalia and Thomas) he would be a fine addition to the court. It’s true that he has the qualifications, like the three above, but he has the same problem that Sen. Kyl has. Kansas has a liberal Democrat governor, and we could expect a liberal Republican to be Sen. Brownback’s replacement.
All in all, I would prefer that no one out of the Senate be considered for the high court. We have a list that is long an plentiful with jurists that have made their names on the judiciary, and done it with honor and respect for the law. Those include:
J. Michael Luttig
Janice Rogers Brown
Priscilla Owens
Miguel Estrada
Emilio Garza
Alice Batchelder
Samuel Alito
William Pryor
That’s our short-list. These people are more than qualified to sit on the high court next to Thomas, and Scalia, and Roberts. And yes, I included Roberts because he is going to be confirmed. Too many people have looked into his records, and can find NOTHING that is controversial. The controversy against Roberts will come in the partisan efforts of the democrats to block him. Now, some say it will only be token opposition, and the war will be mounted on the next person the president appoints. Why? Simple. Roberts was taking O’Connor’s seat. People resolved themselves to the fact that O’Connor’s seat wouldn’t be filled by a woman. The rhetoric on the Left is now the president can change that mistake, and nominate a woman.
O’Connor’s seat doesn’t have a sign on it stating "for women only." Her seat goes to the best qualified jurist, man or woman. However, look back at that short-list. I’ve got three woman on that list, and each of them exceed O’Connor in ability and qualifications. The president, should he so choose to, can nominate one of them. My money’s sitting on Luttig, Owens, or Brown.
Publius II
ADDENDUM: FOX News is reporting that Roberts confirmation hearings will begin on either Thursday, or next Monday. And it is worth noting that Sen. Schumer has claimed that this move by the president "ups the stakes" for Roberts and the Supreme Court. Folks, read that as: "We're about to lose our last sanctuary of power."
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:17 PM
<< Home