# Handicapping the next SC nomination **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 22, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960 "2005-09-22T22:50:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/1 "2005-09-22T22:50:17Z")
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](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? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/2 "2005-09-22T23:42:36Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/3 "2005-09-22T23:49:24Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/4 "2005-09-23T01:24:57Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/5 "2005-09-23T02:00:17Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. Bush has been listening to NARAL and Moveon up to this point? This is a surprise. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/6 "2005-09-23T03:03:24Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/7 "2005-09-23T04:04:41Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I wouldn’t bet against Gonzo. It’s excellent politics to dare the dems to attack the potential most prominent Latino in government. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chance_the_Gardener)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/8 "2005-09-23T18:22:33Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Rephrase: if Democrats take their voting cues from Moveon and the hard left, Bush has no incentive to listen to Democrats. 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. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/9 "2005-09-23T19:14:36Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/10 "2005-09-23T19:18:53Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/11 "2005-09-23T19:22:08Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > My guess is Janet Rogers Brown. African American? Check. Woman? Check. Conservative? Double Dog Check. **She is dumb** er than a jelly doughnut, and slightly to the right of Bork, politically. Emphasis added. Can we have some substantiation of that other than: dumb = disagrees with your political views? ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/12 "2005-09-23T19:28:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/13 "2005-09-23T20:14:45Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > 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](http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-doc.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-1-397): > [@](#): > > …in 2003, several members of the American Bar Association founded her to be not qualified for the D.C. Circuit, and she received the lowest possible qualified rating. \*I assume that’s what you mean by “dumb”. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/14 "2005-09-23T21:31:26Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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](http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-doc.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-1-397): > > \*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? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/15 "2005-09-24T02:35:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/16 "2005-09-29T20:21:25Z")
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:](http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-0509290153sep29,0,3394149.story?page=1&coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines:) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON – The White House has narrowed the list of possible replacements for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to about a half-dozen names, presenting President Bush with a tough choice at a difficult time in his presidency, even as the future direction of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. > > \ > > At the end of the process, the leading contenders include current and former high-ranking administration officials with long ties to Bush: Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales and White House Counsel Harriet Miers, as well as former Deputy Atty. Gen. Larry Thompson, who is now the general counsel of Pepsico and would be the court’s third African-American justice. > > \ > > But neither Gonzales, Miers nor Thompson would energize the president’s conservative base, which has urged Bush to seize the moment to nominate a candidate with a well-defined judicial philosophy who would change the direction of the court. O’Connor’s vote determined the result in key cases involving religion, race, abortion and the balance of power between the federal government and the states. > > Fear of revolt > > If the president nominates Gonzales, formerly a Texas Supreme Court justice, a significant portion of Bush’s base would be in open revolt. Many leading conservatives have urged him to make his choice focused on the nominee’s judicial philosophy, much as he did with the selection of Roberts. Conservatives believe Gonzales is simply too liberal or unpredictable on social issues–especially for O’Connor’s crucial seat. > > Thompson and Miers lack judicial experience, and Miers’ close personal ties to the Bush family could leave the president open to charges of cronyism, according to the sources close to the process evaluating Bush’s choices. > > But Sekulow said Miers’ career as managing partner of a 400-lawyer firm in Texas and her leadership of a Texas lawyers group would serve her well. > > “No one should discount Harriet Miers,” Sekulow said. "She would be an historic pick. She was a pioneer for women lawyers and broke the ceiling for women lawyers in Texas. > > Bush also is considering two federal appeals court judges, Karen Williams of South Carolina and Priscilla Owen of Texas. > > Both would trigger an explosive fight in the Senate. Leading Senate Democrats have suggested they would filibuster an Owen nomination, just as they did when she was first nominated to the New Orleans-based appellate court. > > Williams, on the Richmond-based appeals court, might provoke less of a fight, but she still would engender opposition. She also would disappoint conservatives hoping for a nominee of Roberts’ intellectual heft. > > 2 back in spotlight > > That has put the spotlight back on federal appeals court Judges J. Michael Luttig of Virginia and Samuel Alito of New Jersey, two highly regarded conservatives with extensive judicial experience who are very much in the mix, the sources said. > > Senate Democrats would oppose Alito or Luttig, although it is unclear whether either would face a filibuster. > > But nominating either man would leave the Supreme Court with only one woman and one African-American–a prospect Bush would prefer to avoid, the sources said. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/17 "2005-09-29T20:42:53Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/18 "2005-09-29T21:14:51Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > 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. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith\_Brown\_Clement:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Brown_Clement:) > [@](#): > > With John Roberts’ promotion to Chief Justice by President Bush, the media has mentioned Clement as a possible choice to fill what would have been his spot as an Associate Justice because she is a woman. Time (magazine) however stated that Clement’s current chances seem to be somewhat diminished because the Bush administration believes her to be guilty of excessive self-promotion. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/19 "2005-09-29T21:26:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Time (magazine) however stated that Clement’s current chances seem to be somewhat diminished because the Bush administration believes her to be guilty of excessive self-promotion. My definition of irony just experienced an upgrade… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960/20 "2005-10-27T17:30:47Z")
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? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-next-sc-nomination/322960.md?page=2)