Bush originally nominated Judge John Roberts to fill Justice O’Connor’s seat, but since Chief Justice Rehnquist died he’s moved Roberts over to that slot – leaving another Associate Justice seat to fill. The name being floated in the media most often is Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales – who has never been a judge, who has only held the AG post since February, and whose confirmation then was controversial owing to his stated opinions against the Geneva Conventions. OTOH, he would be the first Hispanic on the court, which would help the Pubs in their ongoing struggle with the Dems over the Latino vote. Will Gonzalez be nominated? Would he make a good AJOTSC? Would his confirmation process be smooth? Is there anybody else who might be nominated at this point?
I wouldn’t bet against Gonzo. It’s excellent politics to dare the dems to attack the potential most prominent Latino in government.
I will predict this, though: if Roberts gets more than a handful of “no” votes, (which seems likely) the candidate will be more strongly conservative than Roberts.
If the NARAL/Moveon left is going to paint a moderate like Roberts as an extremist, there’s no reason for Bush to hold off on ignoring them completely and nominating a for-real far-right type.
How can we conclude that Roberts is truly a moderate, given his evasive non-answers during the hearings and the White House’s continued refusal to turn over his papers from the Reagan Administration?
As for the OP, I suspect the next candidate will be a right-wing firebrand, albeit not as covert as Roberts was. For Bush to do anything less would demonstrate a level of restraint and compromise that he hasn’t demonstrated to date.
I think the Gonzales has as much as said that he wouldn’t vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I can’t see him getting the nomination.
Bush has been listening to NARAL and Moveon up to this point? This is a surprise.
Rephrase: if Democrats take their voting cues from Moveon and the hard left, Bush has no incentive to listen to Democrats.
With the gains the Republicans made in the Latin vote in 2004, I’d be surprised if Bush doesn’t nominate Gonzalez or another Latin judge to try to consolidate that. I suppose people will complain if he doesn’t choose a woman. Compared to some of the potential nominees, I could get behind Gonzalez.
Well, since the Democrats have never taken their cues from MoveOn, and since it’s been well more than a decade since they’ve taken a significant number of cues from the hard left, then it sounds like you’re saying that Bush has an incentive to listen to the Democrats. I disagree: Bush’s governing style is one that doesn’t involve listening to anyone, and I don’t see that changing.
As to the next Supreme Court Justice: Gonzales is a possibility. It would certainly keep Democrats quiet, and Bush would be better off without a fight—for the time being, at least. I think Emilio Garza is a strong possibility; he’s both Hispanic and conservative, which is something that the Bush administration is probably keeping in mind, particularly with midterm elections coming up next year.
My guess is Janet Rogers Brown. African American? Check. Woman? Check. Conservative? Double Dog Check. She is dumber than a jelly doughnut, and slightly to the right of Bork, politically.
Is there no conservative female candidate of mixed Hispanic and African-American heritage? 
Based on the comittee voting, I do expect Roberts to get quite a few Democratic votes in the Senate. I interpret the committee vote thusly: Since Lehey voted to confirm, Fienstein, et al didn’t, that means the Dems are free to vote how their own individual political (read: electoral) issues dictate. I expect the full Senate to split the Democratic vote about 50/50. Watch the presidential contenders to see how they plan to position themselves.
Bush seems to like surprises when it comes to SCOTUS nominations, so I don’t know who it’ll be. I expect another Roberts type though, rather than a Scalia or Thomas type. I don’t think Roberts would overturn Roe v Wade, but I’m pretty sure Thomas would and Scalia might very likely do so.
Emphasis added.
Can we have some substantiation of that other than: dumb = disagrees with your political views?
Well John, she was a Judge on the California Supreme Court. I would direct you to any opinion written by her. Furthermore she was the first candidate ever rated “Not Qualified” by the American Bar Association.
None of that means shit in terms of her being stupid*. Here’s a hint: just retract the statment and argue about her “extreme judicial views”. That has more merit than saying someone with her academic credientials is stupid.
And can we have a cite to back up your statement about her ABA rating. According to Senate Democrats:
*I assume that’s what you mean by “dumb”.
No I won’t retract my opinion of her intellectual ability. I know her personally and my opinion is based on my personal experience with her. Since I am not willing to discuss information based on my personal experience with the woman I guess I should not have interjected it into GD. For that I apologize.
As far as whether her published opinions “mean shit”, I think her opinions display a fundamental failure to grasp common constitutional principles. It is not a mere political difference. I am of the opinion that even Scalia would find her views on certain subjects objectionable.
Furthermore, while I am pretty cognizant of your political views, I doubt that I have risen above the chaff often enough for you to know my political views. For all you know I could be a Neocon. If you know so little about the woman why the knee jerk assumption that my feelings towards her are based on political stance?
Let’s not derail this thread into a debate about whether or not she is “dumber than a jelly doughnut”. If you want to think that, go right ahead. I just don’t like leaving absurd stuff like that out there unchallenged. And I’ll assume you don’t have a cite for your claim about her ABA rating. At least get the verifiable facts straight if you want people to take you seriously.
Update from the Chicago Tribune, 9/29/05 – http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-0509290153sep29,0,3394149.story?page=1&coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines:
What ever happened to Edith Brown Clement? I thought she sounded fairly decent when she was a candidate for the slot that went to Roberts.
My definition of irony just experienced an upgrade…
Now that Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination for the Supreme Court, I guess it’s time to revive this thread. Who will be the next choice?