Redstate

We're getting war whoever the nominee is, so he might as well go to war over someone worth going to war over.

To nominate anyone with looser constructionist credentials doesn't make any sense.

For Dog's sake, REPUBLICANS CONTROL THE SENATE!

. . .show their hand during the vote for Roberts:  go limp by dropping most opposition and preserving a veneer of reasonableness, or go into barricade mode--mustering 35-40 NO votes but stopping short of a filibuster lest it be killed dead--as a threat not to go further, but ending up looking as deranged as NARAL in the process?  Once they commit, the White House can announce the O'Connor replacement and use appropriate tactics.

There are two factors in play simultaneously with this nominee both of which demand that Bush nominate a very conservative judge.

First, given the ease at which Roberts has gone through the process, the fact that Roberts replaces another conservative and the next nominee will be replacing a moderate, the left must through some red meat to its base. There will be a big fight regardless of who the nominee is; moderate or conservative no matter there will be a fight.

Second, the President has low poll numbers; he needs a battle to remind the American voter of why he's relevant.  A real conservative to fire up the base but more important a Bork style hearing. For the most part the average American holds Congress and the inside the beltway process in very low regard. Even more so the public has great distain for the Schumer, Kennedy style of politics. The left got away with the Bork hearing because there was only the MSM, not true now. A messy confirmation process highlights to a largely uninterested public all of the Washington negatives

With a very conservative nominee the President can't lose. If the nominee is confirmed he wins, if there is a Bork style mess he also wins. He will have gained the right to remind the American public that his true relevance is to guard the hen house from the wicked foxes in Washington. Ronald Reagan was a master of reminding the public of his relevance in protecting them from the Washington insiders.

I believe the greatest weakness of the Bush administration is their inability to understand when a great political battle can be a very effective tool. We heard when Bush took office that he was the "Corporate CEO" president, there has been far too much of this style. If the President wants to be effective in his second term he would be better served reading Tip O'Neil's book than the Harvard Business Review.  

We should also remember the nuclear option.  Both John Warner and Lindz Graham made it clear they would abandon their little gang if the democrats filibustered just anyone.  So, if we can get them on board, we can ram home whomever we choose.

Also, what happened to the names of Emelio Garza and Miguel Estrada?

It is apparent by the Dems need to have a meeting of the minds so to speak that they too have weekness' to address.  They have realized they just can't filibuster all nominees.  

didn't say during the 2000 and 2004 elections that he would nominate judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, depending on his poll numbers.

because you want to nominate somebody to make dems happy.

Bush should bite the bullet and give us the originalist that he promised.

Roberts is a good pick, but at best we are looking at him maintaining the Renquiest status quo, and at worst moving the renquist seat a little to the left (I don't think he will be a Kennedy or O'Conner).

It is time of Bush to put up or shut up, and give us the real judge in the mold of  Scalia and Thomas, give him/her to us, and go to bat for them, and get the senate to do their job.  Tell Chuckie and Teddy to sit down and shut up.

Conservatives are very down. They known that Roberts replacing Rehnquist moves the Court to the Left! The President should have nominated Michael Luttig instead, although I personally believe that Luttig too is not sufficiently conservative.

To have achieved an overall shift to the Right, the O'Connor replacement will therefore have to be a jurist in the mold of Scalia or even better Thomas, but this time for real!

Most people on the President's list must be taken off. We need some who is accomplished, resumed, young and outspokenly conservative.

No name springs to mind. The President is in a bind, but he has himself to blame.

about the whole Republican agenda....the party is weak and has no idea how to wield power.

...is that it will be Jones.

For her, Bush has simply to make sure that she can get 50-51 votes (in all circumstances).

If she can't, he'll probably move next to Luttig (who I think is actually a little more likely to get to 51).

Whichever (obvious, non-stealth) conservative/originalist can get to 51 is the one they'll go with (after a thorough vetting process, 'natch).

If I were Bush, I'd wait until after Roberts gets the full vote in the Senate to nominate.

McConnell is also a good option, but doesn't appear to be mentioned much as being on the list from the WH rumors.

But I think the one problem with the Roberts directly to the CJ position, is that it does make the dems better able to muster for a fillibuster of the O'Conner replacement, and since she isn't leaving the court til confirmation of her replacement, then the dems have all the time in the world to play procedural games, if they don't want to go directly to the fillibuster.

Sadly, while we all knew Renquist was not in the best of health, I think his passing did not come at a good time in regards to getting O'Conner's seat filled-in the end it makes democratic games easier to play and justify.

One nice thing about Luttig is that his record is similar in many ways to Roberts, except Luttig has been a judge longer. It means no political 'diversity' points, but it also makes it hard to explain why Luttig should be rejected.

Personally, I think Estrada is the best choice, then Jones and Luttig.

If you want the youngest, most confirmable originalist, Luttig is your nominee.  He's 51, he's smart, he's qualified, he's a true originalist, and he's got that whole Roberts brand gravitas.  Democrats will have a hard time holding ranks on a filibuster, and he'd probably get every Republican vote on confirmation.  

If Bush just won't nominate Luttig, McConnell is also a good choice.  Young, smart, qualified, etc.  He's been endorsed by Hugh Hewitt, so I don't think he's the moderate some think he is.  It's just that he's from academia and that tends to make conservatives nervous (though I had some pretty conservative law profs in my day).  

Karen Williams is still a great choice.  She's from the same circuit as Luttig, she's only three years older, and she has demonstrated an originalist philosophy in the mold of Thomas and Scalia.  Yet she's heard few cases on abortion and hasn't given Democrats any ammo.  She's not a stealth nominee to those who understand the law because anyone who reasoned the way she did on, for example, the Miranda case would also reason the way Scalia and Thomas do on abortion cases.  It's just that explaining that to regular people is often difficult.  Still, if Bush wants a confirmable conservative woman, she's the best pick.  Owen and Jones would almost certainly provoke a filibuster and may even lose on confirmation.

"For Dog's sake, REPUBLICANS CONTROL THE SENATE!"

Yes, but conservatives don't.

As Ramesh Ponnuru often points out, conservatives are the majority of the majority, not a majority.

If Bush just won't nominate Luttig, McConnell is also a good choice.  Young, smart, qualified, etc.  He's been endorsed by Hugh Hewitt, so I don't think he's the moderate some think he is.  

No one has accused of being a "moderate".

Basically, the rap on him is that he's an "inconoclast" or a "loose cannon". (Or, possibly, that's he too "libertarian".)

It's just that he's from academia and that tends to make conservatives nervous (though I had some pretty conservative law profs in my day)

Academics make many nervous, with good cause.

For all of these reasons, I'd very much like to see Bush steer away from McConnell (and/or Gonzales) until, oh, 4 or 5 picks down the road...  ;)

In the meantime, go with a jurist even more established than Roberts - and that quickly gets you back to Jones & Luttig (and possibly state jurists like Owen and Rogers Brown, etc.).

For giving us a little something to chew on again.  Keeps us occupied.

I've always thought that list must be between Luttig, Jones, and McConnell.  I think either of those three would be confirmed, and I would love to see Jones and Luttig on the Court.  Probably McConnell too.  He's a definite originalist.

Other dark horse candidates include Cornyn, William, Batchelder, Owen, and Garza.

But the three mentioned should be the next three picks.  End of story.  I have to agree with those who say, "Look, get it over with and nominate a real conservative already!  Just do it!"

I agree.. and I didn't give thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to help elect a senate majority so we could get semi-conservative nominees in place.

Time for the GOP gang of 7 to look to their hole cards and decide where they stand.

EDITH JONES .. EDITH JONES ....

Second, the President has low poll numbers; he needs a battle to remind the American voter of why he's relevant.  A real conservative to fire up the base but more important a Bork style hearing.

The best defense if a good offense. I'm increasingly drawn to Janice Rogers Brown or Miguel Estrada myself.

As a Honduran-American, I would love Miguel Estrada to be an Associate Justice of the SCOTUS. I also think that the sroty of Judge Janice Rogers Brown is phenomenal. President Bush should go ahead to nominate either Estrada or Rogers Brown to replace O'Connor and the obstructionist Dems filibuster all they want! Bush has to fulfill his promise of a Justice in the mold of Thomas and Scalia...Roberts falls short. We want Janice or Miguel

Edith Jones is acceptable but the best in my opinion are Rogers Brown and Estrada. Garza and Clement seem to be out, not so Gonzales, Thompson or Luttig.

If JRB really is the libertarian she is reported to be, she may have a stealth appeal to the Democrats. A libertarian would have voted for Lawerence, and would have voted for the defense in Raich.  I'd love to see JRB nominated, but I'd probably die of surprise if it really happened.

If JRB really is the libertarian she is reported to be, she may have a stealth appeal to the Democrats. A libertarian would have voted for Lawerence...

A Libertarian could have just as easily ruled (correctly) that it was a State's Rights issue and voted with the minority to kick it back to the states.

You may be right about Raich, but no one can be sure...

But haven't at least a couple of the GOP members of the Gang of 14 said that they would vote to pull the nuclear/constitutional option to end filibusters if the Dems tried to filibuster someone who doesn't rise to the extraordinary circumstances level?  I know that 'extraordinary' was never defined, but it obviously didn't apply to judges like Janice Rodgers Brown and Mark Pryor.

One of those who has pledged to invoke the constitutional option if need be is Lindsay Graham, and he has said that only ethical concerns, not philosophical ones, make a candidate worthy of a filibuster.  

So basically, there is no reason not to go for a solid conservative/originalist.  If the GOP is not willing to go all out now, with the Presidency and the Senate, and lead the nation into a much needed discussion about the proper role of the judiciary, then it never will.  If Roberts proves to be who we hope he is, and if Bush doesn't screw up with O'Connor's replacement, then we'd be just one justice away from a conservative majority.  We may never get this chance again.  Bush says he doesn't govern by polls, so he should definitely shouldn't start now.  Its not like nominating a 'moderate' would do anything lasting for his approval ratings anyway.

Bush says he doesn't govern by polls, so he should definitely shouldn't start now

He won't. I think all this punditry about Bush's calculus changing day-by-day with the rise and fall of 24-hour news cycles misses the man by a mile. That's just not how he thinks. He would deride all that kind of stuff as 'small ball.' This is a guy who navigates by keeping his eye on a landmark, not by watching the chop in the water.

I hope it's Edith Jones, she's sounds like she's worth the fight and prayers.

Especially about how, no matter what, Bush can't lose. If the Dems pull a Bork, the public will know it and think less of them for that, I believe. As you said, Americans no longer get their news from just the MSM.

I shouldn't have just listed Jones, there are plenty of good choices the President can make. I like Garza, Estrada, Brown, & Luttig. I just don't like moderates or unknowns.

The people who really care about the Supreme Court are the politically involved on the Right and the Left which, lets face it, is not a great percentage of the population. However, they are an important segment who I believe are the Opinion Leaders that have a great deal of influence over the politically non-involved. The rest of the population can be led to support someone who has qualities that they like in a celebrity or in a lead character in a cheesy Lifetime Original Movie. So, Bush needs a candidate that he can sell to 1) his base - the involved Conservatives, and at least either 2a) someone who has a nice face and a certain star quality for the public to eat up like John Roberts or 2b) someone with a compelling life story of triumph over adversity for the public to eat up like a Hollywood script.

Bush must, above all else, satisfy his base - and a stealth nominee will not do this. If Bush thinks his approval ratings are low now, he would hate to see them once he nominated a stealth candidate who disillusions the 41% (or whatever his approval ratings are at now) who are his stalwart supporters. A stealth or even a liberal nominee won't make Bush haters like him or approve of his job as President, but it sure could nuke his approval ratings with Conservatives.

For this reason, I think that he should nominate one of three candidates 1) Miguel Estrada, 2) Janice Rogers Brown, or 3) Viet Dihn. If Democrats come out to attack either of these candidates, it will look extremely mean-spirited and politically do a lot of damage to them in the run-up to the 2006 elections while elated Republicans will gladly come out to support their candidates.

Miguel Estrada would appeal to Hispanics, which we don't need to be reminded again how this is the largest minority group in America, and I think has a Senate confirmation advantage in that I think that Sen. Sanchez from Colorado would be a vote that Senate Republicans and Mitch McConnell could count on.

Janice Rogers Brown would be a great choice because of the poverty-stricken African-American faces we saw beamed into our living rooms on television who were devastated by the brutal force of Hurricane Katrina. JRB used to be one of those poverty-stricken faces who lifted herself out of poverty and became a breath-takingly amazing judge on the way.

Viet Dihn, I believe I read, came here as a refugee from Communist Vietnam. While this story doesn't quite catch Americans' imaginations as it did during the Cold War, it is still a great story of escaping repression and rising to the top.

Above all, these nominees would be extremely popular with Bush's Conservative base, and their life stories would remind Americans that this is still, albeit to a lesser extent, a great New World filled with opportunity where you really can accomplish great things if you are willing to work for it. That is why I think all of these nominees would absolutely be confirmed - and the more the Democrats attacked them, the more they would be hurting themselves and helping Republicans. As much as I love Edith Jones (my blood pressure goes off the charts and I'm prone to launch into long rants to myself in the bathroom or in the shower every time I think of how different Supreme Court decisions over the past 12 or so years would have turned out if Bush 41 had nominated her instead of Souter), I just don't think she has the charismatic star quality of John Roberts and also lacks the compelling life story of these nominees. These three nominees are a win-win situation for The Bush Administration and Republicans up for election in 2006.