Redstate

No matter how frustrated conservatives get with the Bush Presidency, if there is one thing we can agree on is that Bush's Supreme Court picks were excellent (except Miers) and we kept the highest court in the land from liberal control for possibly another generation.

I think conservatives should remember that if a moderate Republican get the Presidential nomination, to not sit out the election out of spite. Choosing Supreme Court judges is probably the most important role for the President besides national defense.

We can easily contrast the difference between Clinton and Bush and see what kind of judges a Democrat or Republican chooses. Clinton picked card-carrying ACLU members, Bush picked strict constructionists.

Elections have consequences.

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "

William F. Buckley, Jr.

This pretty much secures my support for Romney. His flops on social issues are troubling, but what else can one expect him to say now that would be more convincing than this? You either believe him or you don't. I like Rudy too, but he hasn't said ANYTHING about abortion or judges (yet). At least Romney is saying the right things.

Romney gave a good answer. However, I'd expect every Republican candidate for president to give a similar one. The important thing to me is how much political capital a Republican president will be willing to spend to secure a truly conservative judge? It's likely that the Senate will either be Democrat controlled or a very thin majority. He WILL face opposition. Will he plant his flag on this issue or will he cut a deal? That's why it's not good enough to say the right things. The president must truly believe in the importance of this issue and be willing to sacrifice less important goals to achieve it.

Given that every Republican president except probably Gerald Ford has been trying to move the court onto the course of textualism and originalism, and the court's current 7-2 Republican composition, there's a case to be made that appointing strict constructionists in like Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court is easier said that done.

After reading Supreme Conflict, the difference is the amount of diligence that the Executive Branch puts into the search - and willingness to nominate the best candidate, regardless of gender or ethnic politics.

The Dubya Administration has has poured over prospective candidates from the moment he took office, and the only misstep was when Dubya insisted on nominating a woman. He thought he was nominating a true strict constructionist, and Harriet Miers desperately wanted to be a justice we could be proud of, I believe - she just wasn't up to the enormous task at hand, having not really contemplated the weighty issues of constitutional law much probably much at all since she actually had to take ConLaw in law school.

Then, Miers's inability to become prepared enough to be a respectable nominee before the Judiciary Committee, in the end, was what forced her to withdraw - and Dubya went back to the old formula and Miers's favorite candidate to begin with, Samuel Alito.

By contrast, Bush I was scared off of Ken Starr by those who thought he would be too liberal, and he then ended up taking John Sununu's and Warren Rudman's word that David Souter was conservative. It was a sloppy and anything but diligent search for an outstanding justice. I, too, believe that a Justice Starr would have more in common with a Justice Kennedy than Justice Scalia, but...that's better than getting another Justice Blackmun! It's especially infuriating that he went with a New Hampshire guy over a great Texas gal who was still confirmable at the time and who would have been a legendary justice - Edith Jones.

If Bush I had gone with Jones over Souter, we would be forever indebted to the Bush family for giving us Thomas, Jones, Roberts, and Alito who together with Scalia would be writing probably some of the most impressive opinions that we've ever seen come from the Supreme Court.

So, in short, great Supreme Court selections don't just happen. Any Republican president will have to have an operation like the Bush White House does, and stick to the plan. Only if they do that will he be able to follow through on his pledge and presumed desire to nominate great justices to the Supreme Court.

Has Souter ever commented, publicly ot privately, over his conversion?

In his first couple years on the Court, Souter was fairly conservative. Then he drifted a few years, before becoming a permanent 100 percenter for the other side.

Outside of idle speculation, does anyone know why?

kowalski, I think you meant Alito, not Roberts.

fast200, Romney has re-conciled his former pro-abortion stance. He has consistently spoken of and explained his conversion to the pro-life side, and admitted he was previously wrong on this issue. What else do you want from the guy?

SanDiego92108, Souter has never explained his conversion because there was no conversion. He was never a conservative and never publicly claimed to be. The Bush I administration mistakenly took him for a conservative, and we have all been suffering for it since that time.