Nice breakdown, Steve. The Latin two-fer is one I hadn't considered. In all honesty though, I'm not sure how much trouble the Dems can give Garza, or really any pick for that matter.
Reid's already basically given Gonzalez a thumbs up, and that's the "moderate replaces moderate" pick. The Rehnquist pick can be whatever Bush wants after or alongside that.
Posted by Mr Furious at July 7, 2005 11:14 PMIf you got an accurate poll about American's feelings about Supreme court picks, it would go something like this....
45% against any Bush nominee, no matter what.
35% for any Bush nominee, no matter what.
20% don't know there are any Supreme Court justices.
"confirmable"? I frankly think we should set up a situation in which a filibuster occurs- it will be an opportunity to paint the democrats as obstructionists, and at the same time, no filibuster has delayed a vote on anything for more than a couple days.
Confirmable means anyone that we can get 51 republican Senators to vote for. Period. Everyone knows the stakes, and no arm will go untwisted by the leadership and the White House.
Two nominees and Scalia to Chief- yummy.
Posted by Marcus Agrippa at July 7, 2005 11:33 PMMarcus, you guys will definitely set up a situation where a filibuster occurs, and don't be so sure it will be the Democrats who are harmed by that outcome.
Posted by Steve Soto at July 7, 2005 11:37 PMi don't believe the fraud has any political capital to spend at all..zilch zippo ..nada..each passing day confirms that...these bombings in london will eventually illustrate how we have failed in the war on terror...our focus should have stayed on bin laden from the first..instead of an illegal war for oil...the plame affair is bringing to light the kind of scum we elected and the lengths they will go to protect their lies...spreading democracy and freedom ..what a crock....the fraud is and was a failure ...and people are beginning to realize it....they milked 9/11 for all they could...it's over....the peoples trust in him is fading..they want judges from the mainstream...not kooks like him...he has no capital ..none
Posted by dennis at July 8, 2005 03:16 AMI agree with Dennis. His political capital went out the window, it seems to me, the day the GOP involved itself in the Schiavo case. It was like the "penny dropped" for millions of Americans. The GOP over-reached and exposed their supporters for what they really are. Jeb Bush, just a couple of weeks ago, continued to drag Schiavo's body around, until finally the State Attorney closed the case once and for all. For George and Jeb to have involved themselves in this case was a big mistake.
Posted by Judith at July 8, 2005 04:21 AMAlso, the war and SS didn't help Bush either with his political capital spending. Now he is bankrupt.
Posted by Judith at July 8, 2005 04:28 AMHere's my proposal, one I personally don't like because it only hardens the edges of incivility in our contemporary judicial politics, but one that actually might fly: Strike a deal to confirm the absolute worst wingnut judge that Bush and his creationist colleagues can find along with Laurence Tribe, probably the most respected constitutional scholar of our time. Then trust to the one with brains and reason on his side to prevail in the court's conferences.
I like larre's plan, except for 3 things:
1) This was a West Wing episode - The Supremes, and the plot was a way to get a very liberal judge on the court while naming an ultra-con to the second seat to pass the Senate.
2) The Religious Right won't EVER accept a deal that keeps the 'balance' of the Court. They would see this as an opportunity to turn the Court on abortion not marignally, but decisively in order to hold a greater precident.
3) No one in this administration or the GOP leadership has enough intelligence & modesty to come up with this. It'd have to come from Reid, and the GOP won't have the emotional maturity to consider it.
Posted by idiosynchronic at July 8, 2005 05:15 AMI think we will get Gonzales and one hard right nominee (probably a woman).
The Republicans are in a tough spot. If they pick
conservatives soft on Roe, like Gonzales, they upset the evangelical base. But pick hard right judges who would overturn Roe, and white social moderates will continue to leave the party.
I think they will try and appease everyone - thus
Gonzales and one hard right nominee.
I don't know if it will work. The Religious Right
is pretty upset about Gonzales. After all, Roe would still have a 6-3 majority on the court.
Also, socially moderate white voter are getting pretty disgusted. They may continue to leave at even one hard right pick.
Posted by Erich at July 8, 2005 06:26 AMThe fact remains that Bush wants to move the court to the right with as many strict constructionists as possible
Please, please, puhleeeze don't refer to them as "strict constructionists." There are at least two ways to be "strict" in construing legal texts: Textual literalism, and originalism. If you switch, as Scalia and Thomas do, you ain't being "strict." You're just using the word "strict," which is good, to cover for the fact that you're actually "reactionary."
Posted by Matt Davis at July 8, 2005 06:47 AMEr... Steve... They were not trying to discredit Plame--she was a pawn in an attempt to smear Wilson, her husband.
Posted by buck turgidson at July 8, 2005 07:25 AMPlease, please, puhleeeze don't refer to them as "strict constructionists."
Wasn't there some serious dissent amongst the Founders to the idea of tacking a Bill of Rights onto the Constitution? If I recall correctly the BofR was a compromise considered necessary to achieve ratification. Many had serious reservations about enumerating specific rights since it might ultimately be interpreted as dismissing certain other rights because of their absence from the document.
And low and behold we have now arrived at the point where the reactionary right seeks to impose its will on the general populus by tacking prohibitions on all sorts of activities they find objectionable onto the Bill of Rights.
God bless America.
Posted by muckcat at July 8, 2005 07:37 AMThey were not trying to discredit Plame--she was a pawn in an attempt to smear Wilson, her husband.
I don't think it was so much a smear as it was laying down a marker: "This is what you get when you mess with us." (as Radiohead put it in "Karma Police")
That's what's so interesting about this budding scandal to me. There were certainly smarter, more effective ways they could have gotten what they wanted. But Rove is vicious, and it's tough to think of something meaner than what they chose to do. If this thing brings Rove down, it will be because his greatest asset--his preternatural eagerness to hurt people--proved his downfall.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 8, 2005 07:37 AMYou're just using the word "strict," which is good, to cover for the fact that you're actually "reactionary."
I thought it was more like "ideological" or "activist". Make the interpretation of the rule of law/constitution fit my preconceived ideology...no?
Posted by emal at July 8, 2005 08:07 AMMatt, I'm not sure I'd characterize Plame as a pawn. I'm wondering if Rove pulled a twofer with her outing. Get rid of a public gadfly (Wilson) and silence a possible dissenting voice in the CIA on the WMD boondoggle. It can't be a total coincidence that she was in the WMD section.
Posted by iamcoyote at July 8, 2005 08:31 AMHow about a three-fer, JP Stevens too? Three new Justices, all in their 50's. And that's just this year. We still have three more and Ms. Ginsberg is ailling. What about Souter, I hear he's ready to retire? That makes five appointments by one president. All young and eager to work together for a long time. What a shame, not enough senators to effect the process.
Posted by peter at July 8, 2005 08:41 AMpeter, counting chickens, eggs, hatched.....soemthing about don't do it...egg on your face.
Posted by at July 8, 2005 08:46 AMpeter,
What is it about such a scenerio that makes you so happy?
Give us a little idea of what you envision the effect of such a court composition to mean for the country should it come to pass.
I'm really interested.
Posted by muckcat at July 8, 2005 08:52 AMActually Peter, even though we throw stones back and forth at each other, Muckat raises a good point. I really want to know, aside from the political point-scoring that seems inherent in your remarks (and mine too, I admit) what type of court exactly are you rooting for? And how do you envision that court affecting your everday life?
Posted by Steve Soto at July 8, 2005 09:16 AMBuck, your are correct; thanks for the catch.
Correction made. It was late, I was tired, yada yada yada...
Posted by Steve Soto at July 8, 2005 09:23 AMNo, I actually meant "reactionary." Justices like Scalia and Thomas are animated by a desire to return to an antediluvian model of constitutional jurisprudence. How that would work with the 14th Amendment, they assiduously avoid saying.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 8, 2005 10:21 AMWell Steve, nice for you to acknowledge that we're BOTH throwing stones here. I've got a few for you.
An America where our children can pledge allegiance to the United States of America, Under God. (Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow)
An America where gay marriage isn't imposed by judicial fiat (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health), and if the people of your state say no, they aren't silenced. (Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning)
An America where wealthy developers can't take away your home (Kelo v. City of New London)
A Banana Republic where elections can't be manipulated after the fact to produce the desired outcome. (Bush v. Gore; the Dino Rossi litigation)
"Let the people decide.
Conservatives would never aspire to use the courts to ban abortion, or to end gay marriage. To state otherwise is patently false. Only through a Constitutional Amendment requiring overwhelming popular approval could these objectives be achieved nationally. We are committed to a healthy and vigorous debate at the state level in which the people decide, not judges.
"Conservatives" are modest and moderate in their views of the judiciary while liberals are radical and reckless and rigidly ideological. It is often noted that the decisions of the Supreme Court reach into the daily lives of average Americans. We don't believe it should be that way -- the Supreme Court is empowered deal only with matters contained in the Constitution, and last we checked, the words "abortion" and "homosexuality" weren't mentioned in the text. These are matters for the people and their elected representatives, not for the courts."
The abortion plank seems to be the all important issure for y'all. So be it, I'm fully aware you can't put that genie back into a bottle. I'm not looking to overturn "Roe". You can have "Roe", I'm not doing the giving, it's already been given. I would, like HRC has said recently, look to reduce the number of abortions. And the partial birth abortion practice needs to severely limited.
I've borrowed parts of this from Patrick Ruffini's blog, he seemed to say much better than I, what I'd like to see.
On another track, have you read anything on the "ROE effect"? Could this be an explaination of why the Democratic Party has failed at the ballot box?
Posted by peter at July 8, 2005 10:37 AMPeter, talk about the "Roe" effect, because to ascribe the party's problems to Roe when polls still show a large majority want abortion to be allowed if limited is a little much.
Posted by Steve Soto at July 8, 2005 11:15 AMNo Steve, the "Roe Effect" isn't about a poll of whether to or not to abort. Please read the following link:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006913
It's a very long article, and I generally support the conclusion.
Posted by peter at July 8, 2005 12:13 PMInteresting hypothesis Peter. Once I get clear of other things in the next couple of days, I may circle back to this and perhaps post on it.
Thanks.
Posted by Steve Soto at July 8, 2005 12:31 PM-- the Supreme Court is empowered deal only with matters contained in the Constitution, and last we checked, the words "abortion" and "homosexuality" weren't mentioned in the text. These are matters for the people and their elected representatives, not for the courts."
The fact that at some future date the majority of Americans or their representatives may believe that abortion should be illegal does not, in and of itself, make it right that it be made so. The fact that the majority of people in a state believe that it is ok to discriminate as to who can and can not enter into a marriage does not, in and of itself, make it right. The framers did not intend for right to be in the numbers. We are to be protected from a tyranny of the majority over the minority. That is one of the roles of the independent judiciary. The people act according to their passions or their self-interest. The judiciary is supposed to overlook emotion and self-interest and rule according to the law acting in the general interest.
I don't care whether a judicial decision is popular. Just that it is decided according to sound, accepted constitutional and legal precedent.
Thanks for the courtesy Steve. Look foreward to your take.
Posted by peter at July 8, 2005 01:14 PM