I way back when said it would be Gonzales. Later, I learned that he said that he wouldn’t overturn Roe, so I backed away from that thought, though I still thought he was a possibility.
Now, I’m stumped. I thought Bush would nominate a friend. He did. That backfired. I don’t think he has any friends who are conservative enough to slip by unscathed by the right. But I think Bush is more motivated by personal loyalty than party ideology. Sooooooo. Um.
Is it too late to clone John Roberts? Oh, wait. That should be “splone.”
I kinda hope Bush appoints Judge Alice M. Batchelder, of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Ohio, Michigan and Kentucky, IIRC). She’s conservative but not doctrinaire, smart, has a good sense of humor, and is from politically-significant Ohio. She served 2 years as a bankruptcy judge, 6 years as a U.S. district court judge, and has been an appellate judge for 14 years. Her husband is a former Ohio state rep and state appellate judge.
I was a summer law clerk for her when she was still a district court judge. Both the AP and the NYT said she was on the pre-Miers short list; Dubya oughta pick her.
I would imagine that Bush is looking for another Roberts, i.e. another person who is experienced and qualified and has generally avoided taking a clear stance on Roe.
The conventional wisdom being batter around is that the conservative base is angry with Bush, and that he’ll have to nominate a Scalia Jr. to appease them. Yet when you look at the poll numbers, his approval among conservatives remained high even during the brouhaha over Miers. The Republican Party remains steadfast among registered Republicans; it is suffering among independents. Thus, assuming that Bush actually wants to bolster the GOP, he will pick a nominee that independents can at least live with.
Recall that the big names on the right (Falwell, Robertson and Dobson) were pleased as punch with the Miers nomination.
IMO, if Bush nominates Gonzales, the social-rightist faction of the GOP will interpret that as an upraised Presidential middle finger in their general direction.
However, personal loyalty is sufficiently important to Bush that I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that he’d do it anyway.
I guess the big question is, “Does Bush care?” Should he? Who is he in this for? I don’t think he’s in it for the party, er, the Republican Party, I mean, not the “car full of hookers and blow” type party that has been referenced on occasion.
I think he doesn’t care about the religious right the tiniest bit. And he might feel that the Republican party is screwed anyway. So get a friend in and hold on tight.
After listening to the pudits today, I’ve changed my mind. Doesn’t have to be a woman afterall. I’m thinking Lutig is good bet now. Bush apparently is going back to what works-- nominate someone like Roberts.
I don’t even want to throw a guess out here, there’s just too many names out there.
As for Gonzales, I don’t know that he would be a good SCOTUS justice, but I wouldn’t hold it against him that he’s never been a judge. A lot of SCOTUS justices are promoted from U.S. District court, for example which isn’t an appellate court and their day to day function has very little in common with the day to day function of the SCOTUS. Someone on a State Supreme/Appeals court or on a Federal appeals circuit court would have the most “relevant work experience.”
But I don’t think the SCOTUS is necessarily a position for which you need to have previous appellate experience.
