More on Chief Justice
The Labor Day version of the Beltway Boys (Barnes, Birnbaum & Krauthammer) speculated on Brit Hume's show last night that by moving John Roberts into the CJ nomination, it eases the pressure on Roberts because he's a conservative replacing a conservative.
However, by doing so, it changed the equation for Sandra Day O'Connor's seat, renewing the calls for a nomination to "bring the country together" — she's a moderate (and a woman), so she needs to be replaced with a moderate woman (or minority).
First off, it doesn't matter whether Roberts is nominated for chief justice, associate justice, or presidential dog washer — the Democrats and their far-left friends will oppose, oppose, oppose. My guess is that any Bush nominee will pass with no more than 65 votes, and the Democrats will use those 35-45 "no" votes (assuming no filibuster) as supposed proof that the president is trying to divide the nation.
Also, I don't know about "moderate" nominees, considering that the Democrats' definition of "moderate" includes Stephen Breyer. Bush is under no more obligation to consider a moderate than Bill Clinton was when he nominated Breyer & Ruth Bader Ginsburg (with full cooperation of a Republican minority that could have easily filibustered the nominations, by the way; their confirmations passed 87-9 and 96-3, respectively), despite the fact that they were hopelessly and irrecoverably liberal.
I'm hoping that if President Bush feels the need for a woman/minority, he considers Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Brown Clement or Emilio Garza or even Miguel Estrada.
My fear: Can you say "Alberto Gonzales"?
However, by doing so, it changed the equation for Sandra Day O'Connor's seat, renewing the calls for a nomination to "bring the country together" — she's a moderate (and a woman), so she needs to be replaced with a moderate woman (or minority).
First off, it doesn't matter whether Roberts is nominated for chief justice, associate justice, or presidential dog washer — the Democrats and their far-left friends will oppose, oppose, oppose. My guess is that any Bush nominee will pass with no more than 65 votes, and the Democrats will use those 35-45 "no" votes (assuming no filibuster) as supposed proof that the president is trying to divide the nation.
Also, I don't know about "moderate" nominees, considering that the Democrats' definition of "moderate" includes Stephen Breyer. Bush is under no more obligation to consider a moderate than Bill Clinton was when he nominated Breyer & Ruth Bader Ginsburg (with full cooperation of a Republican minority that could have easily filibustered the nominations, by the way; their confirmations passed 87-9 and 96-3, respectively), despite the fact that they were hopelessly and irrecoverably liberal.
I'm hoping that if President Bush feels the need for a woman/minority, he considers Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Brown Clement or Emilio Garza or even Miguel Estrada.
My fear: Can you say "Alberto Gonzales"?
posted by Ken @ 10:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home