If Terri Schiavo hadn't been cremated she would be a lock for the job. Young, female, from Florida, the right-to-lifers are crazy about her, and not what anyone would call "independent."
Here's a prediction so wacky it just might work. Rehnquist's health was such that he didn't participate in some of the decisions this year, right? So, suppose he stays sick, maybe even gets a little worse, but doesn't resign? Then Bush doesn't nominate anyone and, instead of conservatives voting 5-4 on everything, they vote 4-3 on everything, and the absence of O'Connor's swing vote doesn't even matter. Better yet, when Rehnquist quits or dies, we get a daily double of wingnuttery. It's out there, I admit. But if you are the GOP which would you rather have: a nominee twisting in the wind for months, or no nominee at all and still a reliable conservative majority on the court?
The only way you have less than 9 votes (except for recusals) is illness or death- traditionally retirements are until the next justice is confirmed, to avoid a bunch of tie votes.
I vote for Bush nominating himself, and Cheney for Rehnquist's spot (Cheney's more conservative, after all.) Separation of powers? What's that?
There was a good post...somewhere...about the benefits of appointing someone who isn't a lawyer, but is politically savvy and in touch, to bring the court to reality on some of the hot-button issues...
I don't know who it will be (I suspect McConnell), but it will be someone awful, and the comfirmation process will fracture the Democratics more than it will the Republicans.
Robert Bork was on CNN refusing to call her a moderate. He thinks she's a flaming liberal. Actually, he thinks she departs from the Constitution.
I wish that we could get more coverage of their non-constitutional judicial philosophy. A lot of business issues that come up before the Supreme Court aren't constitutional at all. What are your principles of statutory construction? Scalia has weird ideas on thenature of remedies available under trust law. (His ideas on restitution v. compensatory and consequentialist damages are pretty odd.)
What it boils down to is that if you sue your ERISA health plan, because your claim for surgery was denied, all that you're entitled to (assuming that the claim was wrongfully denied) is the cost of a the surgery, NOT the cost of providing home health care workers, since you're paralyzed.
If Terri Schiavo hadn't been cremated she would be a lock for the job. Young, female, from Florida, the right-to-lifers are crazy about her, and not what anyone would call "independent."
Posted by EasyRuder | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 12:26 PM
Here's a prediction so wacky it just might work. Rehnquist's health was such that he didn't participate in some of the decisions this year, right? So, suppose he stays sick, maybe even gets a little worse, but doesn't resign? Then Bush doesn't nominate anyone and, instead of conservatives voting 5-4 on everything, they vote 4-3 on everything, and the absence of O'Connor's swing vote doesn't even matter. Better yet, when Rehnquist quits or dies, we get a daily double of wingnuttery. It's out there, I admit. But if you are the GOP which would you rather have: a nominee twisting in the wind for months, or no nominee at all and still a reliable conservative majority on the court?
Posted by diddy | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 12:39 PM
I think O'Connor is staying on until her replacement is confirmed. I assume Rehnquist would do the same.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 1:20 PM
The only way you have less than 9 votes (except for recusals) is illness or death- traditionally retirements are until the next justice is confirmed, to avoid a bunch of tie votes.
I vote for Bush nominating himself, and Cheney for Rehnquist's spot (Cheney's more conservative, after all.) Separation of powers? What's that?
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 1:24 PM
Has Ed Anger passed the bar?
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 1:41 PM
No need, a Justice doesn't have to be a lawyer.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 2:06 PM
There was a good post...somewhere...about the benefits of appointing someone who isn't a lawyer, but is politically savvy and in touch, to bring the court to reality on some of the hot-button issues...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 2:09 PM
I predict Bush will, in a gesture of bipartisanship, reach accross the aisle and nomainte William Jefferson Clinton for Justice.
(hey, am I supposed to be banned for being unfunny? I was unclear on that.)
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 2:10 PM
The Governor of California will be the nominee: it's a quicker route to federal politics than waiting for the Constitution to be amended.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 2:11 PM
Too bad The Duke is dead. Nobody'd not confirm The Duke.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 2:17 PM
So nominate Heston. Same thing.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 2:21 PM
I don't know who it will be (I suspect McConnell), but it will be someone awful, and the comfirmation process will fracture the Democratics more than it will the Republicans.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 2:33 PM
Rove.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 3:32 PM
There was a good post...somewhere...about the benefits of appointing someone who isn't a lawyer
here
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 3:35 PM
Robert Bork was on CNN refusing to call her a moderate. He thinks she's a flaming liberal. Actually, he thinks she departs from the Constitution.
I wish that we could get more coverage of their non-constitutional judicial philosophy. A lot of business issues that come up before the Supreme Court aren't constitutional at all. What are your principles of statutory construction? Scalia has weird ideas on thenature of remedies available under trust law. (His ideas on restitution v. compensatory and consequentialist damages are pretty odd.)
What it boils down to is that if you sue your ERISA health plan, because your claim for surgery was denied, all that you're entitled to (assuming that the claim was wrongfully denied) is the cost of a the surgery, NOT the cost of providing home health care workers, since you're paralyzed.
Posted by Abby | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 3:36 PM
That's the one, cw, thanks!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 3:37 PM
Negroponte.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 5:50 PM
Robert Bork's brain in a kitten's body. Their goal is to drive the liberal bloggers mad(der). Or maybe they'll nominate Fafnir.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 2-05 12:00 AM
Kathleen Harris!
Posted by Mo MacArbie | Link to this comment | 07- 2-05 12:04 AM
Oops. Katherine.
Posted by Mo MacArbie | Link to this comment | 07- 2-05 12:06 AM
So late it doesn't even matter.
Posted by Mo MacArbie | Link to this comment | 07- 2-05 12:07 AM
Oh, it matters. Don't do it again.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 2-05 12:08 AM
The Rev. Moon.
Ralph Reed. (Not Lou, not Rex. Ralph).
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 07- 2-05 10:44 AM