Redstate

This is the one everyone has been expecting.

I just wish Ginsberg and Stevens would also find reasons to retire soon. President Bush replacing a known conservative like Renquist and a known moderate conservative like Sandra Day O'Connor with relatively unknown conservatives will likely keep the court about where it has been for the last eleven years. However, replacing Ginsberg and Stevens with relatively unknown conservatives would be a major shift in the RIGHT direction.

The fight over the confirmation of new justices will be heated regardless of the number of justices being replaced. So, the more the merrier. C'mon Ginsberg and Stevens, it's a great time to consider retiring!

She is not in great health according to most accounts.  She may be trying to hold out for 2008, but it is a matter of her health and her willpower.  Stevens is in pretty darn good health for 85 which I must say is quite impressive for a man born in 1920.

I'm not sure that you are arguing for this, but

...will likely keep the court about where it has been for the last eleven years....

keeping the court where it has been for the past 11 years has no great merit in my view. And even less since that is part of the Democrat's argument. For my money the President should appoint people who are aligned with his views and if that means 2 or three more conservatives/constructionists then so be it.

My wife, who is a relative political novice, was questioning why the Democrats seem to feel that Bush has to their permission for a Court appointment but they didn't feel any great obligation for Clinton to consult with the Republicans. I had to explain to her that her political naiveté was showing. She simply doesn't understand that it is the natural order of things for Democrats to be in power. The present situation is some sort of anomaly in the space-time continuum that must be artificially corrected until the stars are again in proper alignment and the Democrats return to their rightful place in charge of America.

-------------

Did you explain to her that Clinton did consult with Orrin Hatch, according to Hatch himself, and ended up nominating justices that Hatch suggested? Perhaps that might help ease her naivete.

See this. Hatch recommended liberals to Clinton who would be easily confirmed. Clinton encountered some embarrassments early in his term with Cabinet nominations going down. Hatch warned Clinton that if he wanted to avoid another situation like that, he should avoid Babbitt because even some Democrats opposed him.

that O'Connor and Rehnquist did not consult with each other. The guy is dying and he feels he can't retire because O'Connor beat him to it? Doesn't seem fair.

(Incidentally, Orin Kerr over at the Volokh Conspiracy also addresses this, and has an interesting comments thread developing).

So he talked to Republicans, listened to their advice, and then managed to send nominees that were not blocked by the minority? As a point of fact, Clinton consulted with the senior minority member on the House judiciary committee, who seemed to suggest a name that Clinton had not considered before, and who Clinton ended up nominating.

If you focus simply on the political process, then if Bush sends a nominee to the Senate floor that ends up being "obstructed" by the Democrats, then it sounds like you'd have to conclude it'd be Bush's fault.

I threw this comment out on Kos,

"He takes credit for suggesting and then helping the nomination of ACLU counsel/Appellate Ginsberg to be a justice? Would the corollary here be Senator Biden suggesting a former counsel for Dobson or Falwell/currently a federal judge to be the nominee? I don't have any idea who they are, but I cannot see any democrat on the judiciary committee doing that."

I got two surprisingly civil (For Kos) replies, conceding the point that the left may be stuck. That's not to say I do not expect them to act as ugly as most expect (delay/bork/smear/filibuster/pick your verb). I do expect that.

It is also another golden opportunity for the administration to let them go right ahead and highlight the differences between the two parties.

I expect the appointment, and the next 2 or 3 appointments into summer 2006, to change the direction of the court, and redound politically to the GOP's advantage.

With the right timing, this will be issue #2 for the 2006 campaigns, and while the war may be a wash in local races, the judiciary is almost always a plus for the GOP to localize the issues.

I was being facetious. Clinton was hardly expected to discuss the matter with the entire Senate Republican Caucus which appears to be the expectation now on the part of Democrats.

Hatch simply warned Clinton that Bruce Babbitt would be blocked, period. (i.e. defeated) Babbitt was opposed by a Democrat from his own home state.

Assuming that the President pursues this "opportunity for bipartisan agreement" proposed by the Democrats, I'd say there are two chances, slim and none, that they are going to suggest any names that very many Republicans are likely to view as a Conservative.

From a Republican standpoint I submit there is no great merit in maintaining the Court in it's present ideological bent.

Her husband is also dying.  I doubt either will be back in Oct.  So it isn't a big problem.  It's all speculation.  We'll see.

No, Hatch didn't; he warned Clinton that it would be a tough political battle (if you have evidence otherwise, please present it).

The judges that Hatch suggested, that Clinton nominated, were "confirmed with relative ease" (I believe it was a 96-3 vote for Ginsburg). It certainly seems that Clinton, after consulting with the Senate, was able to produce a relatively smooth nomination.

I couldn't agree more with you about not keeping the court where it has been for the past 11 years. If we could get nine justices on the court in the mold of Scalia and Thomas I would be thrilled.

We have an excellent opportunity to argue for more level-headed justices since the current crop (at least the four liberals and Kennedy) issued their ruling on Kelo v. New London. There have been few cases that have provoked such outrage from the left and the right.

I notice some of the lefties on this site arguing that because President Clinton consulted with Orrin Hatch about his nominees that it obligates President Bush to consult with the Democrats (I assume Pat Leahy would be the current equivalent). I agree with their logic as long as Pat Leahy approves names of nominees who are just as conservative as Ginsberg and Breyer are liberal. Otherwise, their argument is disingenuous at best.

Does anyone here really think Leahy would ever approve of an extremely conservative nominee? Or does anyone believe that such a nominee would then be approved 96-3, as was Ginsberg. Which party is dividing the country again?

jsteele claimed, "but they didn't feel any great obligation for Clinton to consult with the Republicans." I pointed out evidence that, in fact, Clinton did consult with the Republicans (and I do hope jsteele tells his wife this).

I've further pointed out that Clinton went to some effort to not have a political battle over his nominees. If Bush does not go to such trouble, it seems like he should expect to have a much more difficult time getting one confirmed.

I haven't said in this thread that there's any real obligation on him to consult. I do think the destruction of minority protections in the Senate weakens the institution significantly, and the Republican leadership's willingness to give up on the separation of governmental power will be incredibly destructive to this country in the long-term. But that's really probably a separate issue.

Then I will restate my view a different way.

That was then, this is now.

The current climate is one of absolute obstructionism and "Bush Hatred" among people who even only a few years ago we viewed as reasonable. When you have the Minority Leader calling the sitting president a liar and a loser I would contend that it is unlikely that the left is prepared to be even remotely reasonable.

Frankly I see little evidence of anything approaching responsible, reasonable behavior among anyone in authority in the Democratic Party. The voices of reasonableness such as Joe Liebermann have been effectively silenced.

And no, I do not plan to update my wife with your generous 'explanation' of the purported "consultations" between President Clinton and Senator Hatch as I think there is absolutely zero chance that there is hope for reasonable voices on the left.

You state:

"Clinton went to some effort to not have a political battle over his nominees. If Bush does not go to such trouble, it seems like he should expect to have a much more difficult time getting one confirmed."

I agree, if you are expecting President Bush to match President Clinton's efforts. I noted as much in my original post.

My point was that to expect President Bush to do MUCH more than President Clinton did is disingenuous. Ted Kennedy's op-ed piece in the Washington Post yesterday was a pretty good example of the Democrats' attempt to reinterpret the Constitution and to hold President Bush to their reinterpretation.

In his article Kennedy wrote, "[o]ur forefathers finally compromised and authorized the president to make appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate." I know, and I assume you know that Sen. Kennedy is deliberately misreading the Constitution, which states clearly that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint... judges of the Supreme Court." A rudimentary understanding of English should allow one to know that the "advice and consent" portion of that sentence is referring not to the nomination, but to the appointment of judges.

In his article Senator Kennedy interprets the above to mean, "...sharing the names of prospective nominees with the leadership of both parties in the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and other senators who will fairly reflect the balance of views in the Senate and the country."  Surely you must see how far beyond President Clinton's actions Senator Kennedy now expects President Bush to go. President Clinton discussed nominees with Orrin Hatch. Sen. Kennedy won't be happy if President Bush only discusses his nominees with Pat Leahy.

I am sure that President Bush will, out of courtesy, not constitutional requirement, discuss potential nominees with Pat Leahy (and possibly Harry Reid) in advance of a nomination. I am just as certain that he will totally ignore Senator Kennedy's reinterpretation of the Constitution and any other attempts by Democrats or the Gang of 14 to expand the Senate's responsibilities regarding the appointment of those nominated to the Supreme Court by the President.

So, if the trouble to which you expect President Bush to go is equivalent to the trouble to which President Clinton went, I agree with you completely.

the court. It needs to be balanced and it seems to find that balance regardless of the political or personal ideology of the Judges. They are there to protect the sovereignty of the American people.  That would be all Americans not just ultra conservative Republicans.

FDR ran into problems because of the way he tried to stack the court.

First he demanded that all the justices over age 70 resign.  Then he demanded that Congress change the court to 15 members so that he could appoint 6 new justices.

FDR ultimately did stack the court, but he did it by staying in power long enough that 8 of the 9 justices on the court when he entered office had died.

Bush is Not attempting to stack the court. At this point we are talking about appointing ONE nominee who is consistent with the judicial philosophy that President Bush told the country he would appoint

President Clinton appointed nominees who were consistent with his judicial philosophy (activist liberals), no one accused President Clinton of trying to stack the court.  President Bush should appoint nominees consistent with his judicial philosophy

and will wait until O'Connor's replacement is confirmed?

That way, libs and the media can't try to trap W into a "pick a conservative for Rehnquist and a mod for O'Connor" trap.  Could it be that Rehnquist is waiting, simply because he knew Sandra was going to leave, and so he just waited her out, or perhaps a deal between the two?

I sense both Rehnquist and O'Connor both have great respect for Bush and want him to have his choice.  I sense the respect goes both ways, as well.

I also think that Gonzales will not be picked unless we get to a 3rd and maybe even a 4th choice.  If we got to a 5-4 overturn roe majority, I dont think conservatives would mind if THEN Bush picked his buddy Al.

I didn't see that op-ed, and I can't find it on the Washington Post site (Kennedy is an awkwardly common name to search for). I haven't claimed any constitutional requirement for Bush to consult with the Democrats before nominating someone.

I certainly don't expect President Bush to go to any trouble, of course. He's a divider, not a uniter, after all, and even when it's not necessary, he and the Republican leadership seem to enjoy sending bills in that will pass due only or almost only due to Republican support. He's made significant political gains by shoving Democrats into the "obstructionist" corner time and time again.

(And no, I'm not saying this isn't a "necessary" case, nor am I saying it is).

You say about President Bush, "He's a divider , not a uniter, after all, and even when it's not necessary..."

On the other hand, the Democrats are trying to unite us aren't they. Harry Reid calling President Bush a liar and a loser should certainly unite us. Every word out of Teddy Kennedy's mouth is meant to unite us. Howard Dean is consistent in his attempts at unification. I mean, saying Republicans are brain-dead and that he hates everything we stand for and that we have never worked an honest day in our lives, certainly that is meant to unite us, isn't it?

Meanwhile, President Bush has invited Harry Reid (who called him a loser and a liar) and Patrick Leahy to meet with him next week to discuss potential nominees. He has asked special interest groups from both sides to tone down the overheated rhetoric. He has called no one a liar, a loser, brain-dead, or lazy.

Yeah, now I see your logic. Black is white. Good is evil. Uniters are dividers. I get it.

I said, Bush is a divider, and I mean it. At this point, yes, it's fairly obvious that many Democrats are no longer trying to compromise with him. But I didn't say anything about them... I was talking about Bush, and his actions.

Bush has actively attempted to increase partisan divide, from how he pressed for war before the midterm elections to how he flipflopped on Department of Homeland Security (taking credit for it while simultaneously getting anti-worker provisions inserted into the bill).

These are things that Bush has done to divide, as active, not reactive, steps. Maybe all of Washington is divisive; but Bush (and substantively, not simply with labelling) is part and parcel of the division-making.

And it does seem like a positive step that Bush is talking with Reid and Leahy.