Manuel Miranda, former counsel to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and founder and chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of grassroots organizations following judicial issues, has been doing some excellent analyses for Opinion Journal.
In his latest article, he examines the likely contenders to replace Justice O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Miranda looks at three categories of judges, each having political pluses and minuses. The interesting thing is that he identifes numerous strong jurists who fit Bush's criteria for judicial philosophy and temperament, which means that political and confirmability considerations may well be a very large factor in the president's decision-making process.
Most interesting was the mention of three Senators who could do the job but would not fit the perceived need for an additional woman to be named to the Court with the current choice. Bush went outside the original expected candidates in previously choosing John Roberts for O'Connor's vacating seat, and a surprise candidate remains a possibility. The list Miranda compiles, however, is plausible, as are his comments on the candidates. Read it here.
I don't agree with Miranda that the short list is restricted to his three categories. I still think Luttig and McConnell are in the running.
ReplyDeleteI adore Scalia, and daydreaming about the phrase "Scalia Court" makes the back of my neck tingle. But Scalia would be a terrible Chief Justice, and I doubt he's very interested in the job anyway. He relishes his role as a bomb-thrower and writer of biting criticisms of his court colleagues. He'd have to cut all that stuff out if he were Chief Justice. It's much more about temperament than experience, anyway; if someone's fit to be nominated, they know how to be a justice from the moment they sit down behind the bench. Roberts already knows how the court works; he's argued a bazillion cases before them, and won most of them.
I think Clarence Thomas would have been a fine Chief Justice too, and suspect that the prospect of three confirmation battles might have led to him being passed over when he otherwise would have been considered.
Just to add a little legal background, it is not a new thing to name a new justice as the Chief. Not new at all. The most famous example is Earl Warren.
ReplyDeleteI'd do backflips if McConnell were nominated to replace O'Connor. He's the very best kind of conservative a liberal like myself could hope for: intelligent, reasonable, and a clear thinker.
ReplyDeleteThis is one place JFE and I agree. McConnell is the strongest mind, in my view, of the bunch acceptable to the right. I've read his stuff and have quoted him in my scholarly work. He's great.
ReplyDelete"I understand that it's not a new thing but the central flaw of conservativism (in the original sense of the term) has always been that not everything old is good."
ReplyDeleteTo paraphrase Hoffer, conservatives as we recognize them today are, in fact, quite radical.