Judicial Nomination Wishful Thinking

[elfs]

Although I am probably not at all going to be correct, if Bush wanted someone "in the Roberts mode," he could do no better than Richard Posner or Alex Kozinski. Those two deserve that seat in a way Gonzales or Meiers never could.

If intellectual rigor is what the court needs, it couldn't do better than those two. Unfortunately, Posner's 66, but he's still an unbelievably prolific writer. Kozinski's paper trail is fascinating stuff.

Naaah. Who am I kidding? We're going to get another Souter.

Comments

[nbarnes.livejournal.com]

On a serious note, I point out that one of the major comminalities between Roberts and Miers was their near-total lack of paper trails, especially judicial ones. I expect that you're right, we most emphatically will not get a nominee of whom anything can be said. We're due for another stealth candidate about whom little is known.

[fallenpegasus]

The blame for this particular new judicial nominee tradition can be laid directly at the feet of the anti-Bork people.

[nbarnes.livejournal.com]

Ok, that one I'm unwilling to let past.

Have you actually read any of Bork's writing since he was rejected? Bork is a lunatic. His 'ideas' make the rest of the US theocrats look reasonable. Slouching Towards Gomorrah is an embaresment and shows that the Senate did precisely its job in rejecting Bork for the Supreme Court. We're all richer, safer, and, most importantly, freer because Robert Bork's dangerous ideology is nowhere near our Supreme Court. Goddess please send us more 'anti-Bork' people.

[blaisepascal]

A writer at Slate feels otherwise. In Dahlia Lithwick's article Code Blue -- What the Miers withdrawl means for abortion code-speak, she argues that one of the major things that killed the Miers nomination was the Right's refusal listen to code-speak on Roe v. Wade anymore. That they are fed up with nominees like O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter who were promised in code to be anti RvW, but turned out to support it when on the bench. They want someone who's position is crystal clear.

I'm not sure I agree with her assessment of what killed the nomination. I do think that her egregious lack of a papertrail was a major part of it, combined with her unwillingness to answer meaningful questions about her views and background. Her initial questionaire was returned to her as "incomplete", the only time anyone on the Senate can recall that happening.

Her documented work-record isn't convincing of her qualifications to handle constitutional law. The White House knows what sort of things she's done in constitutional law, but refuses to help her nomination by releasing any details. I think that killed her chances more than the Right not willing to accept a wink about RvW.

However, I also think that Congress isn't willing to accept a stealth candidate either. Bush has lost the clout he would need to push another stealth candidate through. At least Roberts had some paper-trail, and had also been through the conformation process before recently.