<p>Who do you think he will appoint, or what words will describe the appointee, and why do you think this candidate was or will be chosen.</p>
<p>I predict a conservative, because Bush is loosing his base and needs to bring some folks back before he can try to get any agenda through in the next three years. A moderate would be an easier appointment, but a good conservative to annoy the Democrats and gain some fund raising spirit among the Republicans is what I think he will do.</p>
<p>Well, I think it will make more sense for him to provoke a fight to get the news away from his failures, which no one really wants to hear more about, and diverts it to his justification for existance....to protect the God Fearing, anti abortion, tree cutting, everyone own a gun, conservatives.</p>
<p>Since no one else wants to make a prediction, I will go with a minority female catholic judge from a large populated state. Just a guess...I won't be surprised to be wrong on some of it.</p>
<p>To be fair, I think Bush deserves some credit for his Roberts nomination. He could have nominated some nutcase and didn't. I haven't seen anyone but this side of a Massachusetts Senator express reservations about Roberts' legal mind.</p>
<p>In my opinion, fair is fair. You win the presidency, you get your choice of ideology on the court. It's a perk of the job. All that's really important is that you pick a guy with enough brain power and integrity to serve the country well on the Court. A president who does that with a nomination gets good marks from me.</p>
<p>I'm not sure what the president is doing with this nomination. The immediate word from within the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is that he has <em>deeply</em> offended his base. I certainly would have preferred Janice Rogers-Brown or Michael Luttig. Many on the right wanted Bush to put up a rock solid conservative and then whack the dems with a big stick. </p>
<p>We don't know what sort of discussions have been going on in the background, and the president has to consider what sort of support he can garner on his own side of the aisle. Judiciary Chair Spector is a totally unreliable loose cannon. The republicans on the "gang of fourteen" are a consideration. I don't think the charge of "cronyism" is fair in this instance, in this political climate, despite its current status as "slur du jour" (coming from the right, as well!) The president has had a relationship with this nominee for more than ten years. She certainly doesn't have the gilt academic credentials we're used to seeing for SC nominees these days. But he seems to feel confident that she reflects his views on where the court should go, and the current political climate demands (at least for Republican nominees) the absence of any track record. This is the same group of democrats, after all, that rejected Miguel Estrada.</p>
<p>Another famous SC justice who lacked the fancy academic pedigrees of his mates on the Court, whose only judicial experience was one year as an elected judge in a rural Kentucky county, and who was considered a "crony" of the president who appointed him was John Marshall Harlan....you may remember him for his famous dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson. He was the only one who voted the right way.</p>
<p>My gut reaction when reading the news today was along the lines of Northstarmom's. I thought of the FEMA director too :D. Our minds must think alike, lol. I don't know enough about it or about her and so not enough to judge (oops, sorry for the unintended pun). However, my knee jerk reaction is why select someone with NO judicial experience for the highest court judge in the land? I guess it is now pointed out (thank you Driver) that some other justices have been appointed with no previous judicial background on their resumes. I also feel as Northstarmom that it appears as cronyism as someone he has personally worked with all these years from his inner circle (though that is his right to do of course). I just feel, why go there? It like the FEMA guy thing. It is like if I get elected Prez, I take my friends along and give them the jobs, no matter if they'd be the top pick in a regular employee search. It sure is networking of the highest order.</p>
<p>The only thing I have read that counters this reasoning is that because she has NO judicial record, it might save the fighting back and forth about such a record on issues from the various political parties (or Dems in this case). Like a "safer" pick, if you will. I'm glad it is a woman, so it is not all bad. But it seems to me to do this VERY HIGH up job, one should have done some judicial work to get there, as it is in most professions. Just my take. </p>
<p>Mr. B should be happy. In 1988 she contributed $1,000 to the Al Gore for President campaign (along with similar contributions to the Democratic party and Llyod Bentson campaign.)</p>
<p>One more Supreme Court Justice with no prior Judicial experience... Born in a log cabin on the Virginia frontier, studied law briefly at William and Mary, served in the Revoluationary War, member of Congress and Secretary of State at the time of his appointment - Chief Justice John Marshall.</p>
<p>Another Justice with no experience - William Rehnquist. Actually, according to that mouthpiece of the right wing, NPR (yes, I'm being facetious), it has often been the case, both in modern history and earlier that a justice has had little or no "judge" experience. I got hte idea that the thinking is that as long as the person knows the law, and there some "judges" on the court, that having different perspectives actually adds richness to the court - but what do i know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
that having different perspectives actually adds richness to the court - but what do i know.
[/quote]
That is a part of selecting justices.</p>
<p>The list of SC luminaries without prior judicial experience goes on and on. Hugo Black, Felix Franfurter, William O. Douglas, Robert H. Jackson were all Roosevelt appointees, and considered liberal "stars" of the Warren Court. Two of them--Black and Jackson--were also reliable FDR political "cronies" who had strongly backed his court-packing plan.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you think for one second that the Bush team doesn't know that?
[/quote]
Not only do they probably know that, but it was probably part of Rove's secret evil plan that he has been bringing to fruition since he was a nerdy teenager. ;)</p>
<p>What chances were there that the CC lefties would applaud or approve of ANY choice for the vacant SC appointment? None. It is that simple! </p>
<p>Maybe Dubya figured out that his next pick would face an even greater challenge and used his unsuspecting friend as a sacrificial lamb. Then he can get a REALLY conservative candidate on the bench. </p>
<p>That was a private Rove memo, xiggi, you weren't supposed to distribute it. As for "unsuspecting"--She was running the vetting process for the administration, and helped compile the list of great conservative prospects. If she's being used as a feint, I'll bet she's running a play she helped design.</p>
<p>This nomination is a brilliant "Rovian" move. A little known nominee, such that investigation of her will draw attention away from other issues such as Iraq, Rove investigation, Libby investigation, Delay indictment, Katrina response, etc. etc. </p>
<p>And, while it is true that many have come to the Court w/o prior judicial experience, Earl Warren, for example, served as a district attorney, Attorney General of California and the state's governor. Thurgood Marshall was chief counsel for the NAACP and served in the U. S. Solicitor General's office. Also, prior to serving on the Court, Justice Marshall argued (and won) more cases before the Supreme Court than anyone in history.</p>
<p>Ms. Miers was Bush's personal attorney and President of the Texas State Bar Association. Oh yes, and was the state's lottery commissoner at a time that the company administering the lottery was under investigation for bribes and kick backs. </p>
<p>I guess Bork wasn't available, otherwise, good job Karl.</p>
