September 29, 2005
JUDGE KAREN WILLIAMS
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, appointed by
G.H.W. Bush, 54 years old
Lots of recent buzz for Judge Williams, known best
in constitutional law circles for writing the
opinion that said the Miranda warnings are not
constitutional requirements. The Supreme Court
reversed her. If you can't beat em, join em!
New World Man presents: My favorite candidate for the Supreme Court
brought to you by Quizilla
Hmm. Easy on the eyes as well. Come to think of it, I had a crush on a Karen in Eighth Grade once. What the hell!
Today is also the day when just about everybody expects that President Bush will announce his next nominee. Don't be surprised if a "head-fake" leak comes out of the White House or other highly placed source and Drudge splashes a photo of that particular stalking horse all day.
The board is set, the pieces are moving. I will be adding updates to this particular post most of the day as they come in. So keep scrolling down...
On a side note: If you happen to have a TV in your office (and you know who you are) - don't hesitate to shoot me an email with anything that breaks on the newschannels.
UPDATE I: 10:45am
Well, that didn't take long. Drudge is running a photo of White House counsel Harriet Miers - linking to the NY Times. Wisely, he uses a question mark.
Roberts vote set for 11:30. Harry Reid is now telling the Senate body that he likes Roberts so much that he is voting against him. What a strange little man.
UPDATE II: 12:00pm
Roberts is confirmed, 78-22. Michelle Malkin has the list of Dem Senators who caved to the moonbats.
UPDATE III: 3:00pm
Drudge is hedging his bets, three photos: Miers, Clement and Brown, all names culled from the NY Times article by Elisabeth Bumiller. Other than the fact that they're all women, there isn't anything surprising here.
My guess is that there is not yet one name that is generating any buzz, although maybe there is and everyone is still smarting from last time around. If you hear of Left-wing interest groups talking up one particular nominee, that's an indication of a diversion.
Now that Roberts is confirmed and the votes counted, the announcement could come literally at any minute.
The LAST UPDATE: 8:45pm
Uh, Oh. Looks like "the Bushy" might make 'em sweat it out. And US too. Grrrrrrr.
September 27, 2005
Word in legal circles is that Priscilla Owen is set to become the next justice appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I have received reliable information late this afternoon that Karl Rove, among others, is making a last minute push for the President to consider Alberto Gonzales, despite previous assurances from inside the White House, Justice Department, and Senate that Gonzales was not being considered.Personally, I think this is a deflection based on the last go-around. They also report that an announcement will likely come Thursday. This seems about right, although I would be more specific in saying that it will come at about 8:30pm Thursday night (the White House always seems to like to preempt "Will & Grace", just for the fun of it).
The sequence of events should go like this: First, a full Senate vote on Roberts, who will be confirmed either today or tomorrow. My gut tells me that the White House has an "over/under" for the Dem vote count in mind and depending on what side of the line that number ends up, one of two people will be nominated. If by Thursday morning Roberts has already been confirmed, expect the rumor mill to swirl wildly with another "head-fake" splashed on Drudge and other sites. By the end of the evening, they will finally announce a name that wasn't on anyone's anticipated list.
This going to be fun. :-)
Hat Tip to Conservative Grapevine
September 21, 2005
Personally, I found a lot of this fascinating. I take the post's basic premise to be "we didn't define the nominee or attack him aggressively enough, and we lost". Here are a few examples of how they think things should go differently with the next nominee (emphasis is theirs): more...
Democrat Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who has already voiced his opposition to John Roberts, was pretty peeved at the prospect of Bush picking one of the judges he and his fellow partisan hacks had been filibustering over for the Appeals Court.
Reid said Tuesday he would view it as a "poke in the eye with a sharp stick" if Bush nominated any of the 10 appeals court nominees whom Democrats blocked in recent years, including some who were later confirmed. That group includes federal appellate judges Owen and Brown.Man, what I wouldn't give to see Dirty Harry Reid wearing an eye-patch!
I agree that Brown would probably be unable to treat Dem Senators like Biden, Durbin and Kennedy with the elaborate respect that they don't deserve, and that her hearing would produce fireworks like we haven't seen in a long time. But so what? She is much smarter than her Democratic opponents, and she'd do fine. And, more important, the views she would be defending are held by the vast majority of Americans. Let's go ahead and have that fight, is my view.And Manuel Miranda writes in OpinionJournal.com today about the Dem strategy of "smear and intimidate" that may have a significant influence on who the nominee will be.
Don't hold your breath for an anouncement until the final roll call in the Senate for Roberts. How Dems vote on him will probably also have an influence on who is nominated.
September 16, 2005
September 15, 2005
September 14, 2005
I am so sick and tired of these "secularist" groups going on and on about their little feelings being hurt because the have to endure being a tiny minority who is actually bothered by something like this. What bullshit. Here's a reality check, guys: You are not guaranteed the right to "not be offended" or "not be made to feel uncomfortable" by the U.S. Constitution.
They just don't get it. Even if they "technically" win on this issue, they're not going to get the majority of the population of this country to stop saying "under God" when they say the Pledge. Hell, most people will say those two words hoping that they're pissing off some atheists in the room.
You may succeed in changing the law, guys. But you'll never change the culture. You're swimming upstream on this one.
September 12, 2005
Two notable quotes:
"Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire."The whole statement is worth reading. And was delivered without notes.
"If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench. And I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat." [emphasis mine]
Roberts gets it. He'll make a fine Chief Justice.
September 08, 2005
But let's face it, if you take the top ten choices that Bush could make it's pretty hard to force rank them - male and female - and while opinions vary among Conservatives on "best qualified" it isn't by a whole heckuva lot. I'll admit I'm a little embarrassed at being so wrong on my last prediction. But if anything, my reasons for picking Brown are all the more relevant today.
The Dems are going to ramp up the attack on the next nominee for two reasons: 1) they couldn't succeed with Roberts and 2) now that this nomination will be seen as the replacement for O'Connor, for them another true Conservative will be more than unacceptable - it will be the apocalypse.
My top three choices would be Edith Jones of the 5th Circuit Appeal Court, Janice Rogers Brown, recently appointed to the DC Circuit Court and Priscilla Owen who sits with Jones on the 5th Circuit Court. All three are undesputably conservative and originalist in their judicial philosophy and can be counted on to reverse the tide of judicial activism that is making law from the bench where it fails in the legislature - which is the only way Liberals can get their agenda enacted.
Unlike the filibusters and hearings for the Circuit Court nominees that most Americans pay zero attention too, the Supreme Court nominee hearings will be televised as big news. How bad is it going to look to the average American when you have these Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who are mostly middle-aged white men - like Leahy, Kennedy, Schumer and Durbin - beating up on a girl?
There are plenty of male choices for this nomination. But I say the smart political move is appointing an outstanding Conservative woman justice. But then, what do I know?
What exactly is the connection? That's what most people will wonder. But the organization insists that this association is justified.
The ad suggests that the plight of the mostly African-American evacuees in New Orleans showed that poverty remains a serious problem among minorities, said Ben Brandzel, the group's advocacy director. In a mix of judicial and racial politics, the ad then suggests that minorities could suffer if the Senate confirms Roberts.What exactly is it about John Roberts that makes his record on civil rights so objectionable?
"The connection is obvious," Brandzel said. "The images after Hurricane Katrina show we still live in a society where significant racial inequities exist. We believe John Roberts' record on civil rights ... is clearly not the direction our country needs to head now."
Duh, he's a white male of course! And he's a Conservative! And Bush picked him! He must be against civil rights...right?
The only thing worse than the slanderous insinuation that Roberts is a racist - based on absolutely nothing but MoveOn's hatred of Bush - is the disgusting exploitation of this terrible tragedy for their pathetic political agenda.
If the whole subject matter wasn't so sad, this could actually be fodder for a Saturday Night Live skit. Keep it up guys. That loud snapping sound you hear is called a backlash - and it's coming back at ya.
September 06, 2005
By elevating the Roberts nomination to the chief justice's job, the president has made the Roberts fight one the libs must win, and they won't. Roberts will be confirmed (probably not in time for the first day of the court's session next month), but soon after that. And when the president nominates another conservative to replace O'Connor, the libs will be fighting for their political lives.I wonder how this will effect Kos' sooper sekret plan to make the members of the DLC "radioactive", which he announced on August 22. Incidentally, that "two weeks" is now up.
There will be little or no room for them to maneuver around their core constituencies. The NARALs, the PFAWs, and the rest will be shrieking for a filibuster because they realize that with Roberts, Thomas, and a third young conservative (Thomas is only 57), President Bush will be able to stock the Roberts Court with enough conservatives to clearly deprive the libs of their last hold on American government. Their hysteria will be palpable, their rhetoric confused and destructive. There will be a filibuster, unless the president does what they want and nominates a liberal. Which he won't do.
No Democrat -- not even Slippary Hillary -- will be able to hide. Anyone who wants the allegiance of the hard-core left, and any Democrat who expects to gain the presidency must have it, won't be able to take a tempered position. Every one of them will be flushed from cover and revealed as the doctrinaire hyperliberals they really are.
Fasten your seatbelts!
September 05, 2005
Wow. More than unexpected, but I like this. A lot. Despite some doubts from the Right, a thorough investigation into Roberts' history has shown him to be almost a clone of William Rehnquist - and even Ann Coulter has been kind of quiet lately about his Conservative chops.
The most interesting thing now is watching how this plays out. No doubt O'Conner will stay on until another Associate Justice in confirmed - because technically her spot will now still be open. But the Bush Administration must move on this fast - two sets of confirmation hearings will give the Left too much to juggle.
Having already done the research, they should already have someone in mind.
September 04, 2005
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court died last night at his home in Arlington, VA. While this isn't a complete surprise, it was a little unexpected. Despite suffering from thyroid cancer, the old man seemed determined to tough it out as best he could. Many thought he would retire after this session, fueling speculation that his vacancy would be the first for President Bush to fill. I count myself among those who expected him to hang up the robe.
But when asked by reporters about his possible retirement, he wryly told them, "That's for me to know, and you to find out." Well, it would seem he likely knew he had weeks to live at that point and would probably not see the next session in October. It wouldn't surprise me if he had confided this to the President, who he knew could be trusted with this information - which could have had an influence on Bush's choice of Roberts.
Rehnquist will certainly be listed among the top Chief Justices in the history of the Court. How ironic that just as he passes away, a new Associate Justice is about to be confirmed and sworn in who clerked under him.
Now Bush will have two more nominations to make - a new Chief (from the ranks of the current Associates) and a new Associate. My money is on Scalia for Chief. And I hope whoever his successor is, he keeps the golden stripes on the Chief Justice's sleeves - a tradition that Rehnquist started. But there'll be plenty of time to speculate over that. In fact the Liberal special interest groups may now attempt an eleventh-hour ramping up of their opposition to Roberts during the hearings because of this turn of events.
For now, let us honor the man who served his country so well. R.I.P.
September 02, 2005
Anyway, he writes that his biggest concern in these hearings is to determine where Roberts stands on the commerce clause of the Constitution, specifically as it relates to things like environmental laws, civil rights laws and the Constitutionally elusive "right to privacy" established in 1965 and acknowledged by "Roe".
I found one sentence in particular, however, to be an interesting choice of words on Durbin's part:
"Does [Roberts] believe that Congress has the power to pass laws that protect the most vulnerable, no matter where they live?"No matter where they live. Even in the womb, Senator?
118 queries taking 0.0565 seconds, 257 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.