Do you think that a President from any party will appoint a Justice like that in the foreseeable future?
Not intentionally. But many justices were thought to be “ideologically sound” by the President who nominated them (either conservative or liberal) and developed a real sense of moderation and Constitutional rectitude as their justiceships evolved over the years. Justices Kennedy and O’Connor are perhaps the best current examples of this.
I love it when that happens. 
Sure. Thre are Justices now who generally fit that description when appointed, notably Stevens and O’Connor.
“Foreseeable” covers a lot of future. Things haven’t been the way they are for very long, and it would be foolish to think they always will. Do you agree that there’s a growing distaste for ideologuism in America, and that the election results will sooner or later reflect that?
BTW, I disagree that the torture memo makes Gonzales an extremist. It looks more like simple, unprincipled toadying to me. The memo couldn’t have been his idea, it had to be the result of an Administration choice to proceed with torture but needing some window-dressing to cover themselves. He could have resigned out of principle, but his failure to do so doesn’t mean he shared the principle; it could just mean he lacked any.
I hope that’s true. It seems clear that there’s been a backlash, but I don’t know what the effect will be come election time.
You say tomato, I say tomahto. . . Either way he allowed his name to be attached to an opinion few would subscribe to. If he’s not an extremist, at least he is willing to endorse extreme positions if that’s what the master wants. I view the second as more dangerous than the first.
We’ve all been surprised at the lack of a vacancy on the SC. Based on what’s happened so far, I wouldn’t be shocked if Rhenquist pulls a Strom Thurmond, and the rest of them stay until they are over 80. It can be seen by a cynical person as an obscenely maniacal refusal to give up power, and I’m feeling cynical right now :mad:. Damn the miracles of modern medicine!
-
If he’s hostile to rhetoric against his branch of government that’s one thing, but what about him being a conservative? I don’t know him enough to gauge whether he values one more than the other, but I would guess the latter would weigh more for him… simply based on the fact that any new Justice would quickly acclimate to their collective idea of self-importance.
-
Basing anything on ancestry is abhorrent to a (non-politician) good conservative like myself.
However, I can see political points being scored with the new Largest Minority if the Democrats are forced to trash someone whose last name suggests Hispanic descent. Ugh.
(BTW, how often is a new CJ made from a new Justice?)
-
I think an existing conservative besides Thomas would be elevated, especially if someone with Hispanic ancestry is named as another AJ. Therefore
-
Scalia is my best bet. Too old? I don’t think that figures into discussion anymore. :mad: Besides which if the AARP heard anyone say that, the Grey Panthers would make a visit to their office with baseball bats worse… loss of donations and votes! :eek:
-
dunno
-
dunno
-
An SC nomination would automatically invoke the “extreme circumstances” clause of that recent Democrat political asskicking of the Republica… I mean, the compromise to prevent filibustering of judges. The only way it wouldn’t happen is if GWB picks a judge from the list that the far-left Senators will send him. Being a lame duck president, he’ll definately do whatever he feels like doing and nominate a conservative… and therefore automatically a Torquemada by the standards of at least 2 or 3 Senators.
The question is therefore “How does he gain and win a cloture vote?” My guess would be nothing dramatic like that Nuclear Option nonsense, just old-fashioned political favors and arm-twisting behind closed doors. GWB would not back down on his nomination. I expect the Democrats would scream loudly, but capitulate in the end after receiving their secret favors from GWB… and then somehow claim victory.
-d
I’d be willing to bet that Albert Gonzales will be the next nominee for any opening, because contrary to what the Left believes (and what the Right would like to believe), George W. Bush doesn’t make appointments based on ideology. He makes them based on personal ties and personal loyalty. So, even though the Right is justly suspicious of Gonzales, Bush will probably nominate him because he knows Gonzales, he likes him, and thinks of Gonzales as “his” guy.
So, speaking as a right winger, I can only hope the next justice to step down is Stevens. Gonzales would be a definite improvement over Stevens. But if he’s appointed to replace a conservative, that’s a definite victory for the Left.
Many on the left are EXTREMELY suspicious of any nominee who supports torture, as Gonzalez has. It’s either the case that Gonzalez signed off on that torture memo because he is a total weasel who has no sense of morality, or because he’s been hiding whatever moral scruples he may have in the interests of his own advancement, and may feel safe about developing them from the safety of a Supreme Court seat. But there’s no telling what his scruples might be in that case, and plnty of reason to suppose that his habitual willingness to sell out his scruples may continue to apply when he becomes a Supreme, even though he need not fear being de-Supremed for not doing so. Evil becomes a habit, if you do it long enough. And the Gonzalez torture memo is proof that he HAS been evil.
Boy, it is sort of scary to contemplate the idea that Bush and the Republicans in the legislative branch have become such extremists that they even scare Rehnquist!
I think Scalia killed his chances of becoming Chief Justice when he wrote the opinion in Employment Division v Smith , for which the religious right has never forgiven him. I also have heard stories of him wanting to retire, and earn money, but I have no firm information on that. Scalia also just simply does not have the administrative skills or interest to do the job. Rehnquist has not been a great legal scholar (though probably better than his predecessor, not a high bar), but he reportedly has astonishing admin abilities, and the Court has become way more efficient during his term.
Given the obsession with religious correctness, my pick for Chief is Michael McConnell. I think he would be approved as he is only really outspoken on religion, and Congress isn’t gonna reject someone who thinks Christianity should be protected more.
Interesting discussion.
Nina Totenberg, NPR’s Supreme Court-watcher, said a week ago that she’d learned that Thomas had told the White House he wouldn’t be interested in serving as CJ, if the occasion arose.
I tend to doubt that Scalia would be elevated to CJ. Associate justices “promoted” to CJ have historically not been as successful, since the battlelines and alliances between them and the other justices are already pretty well-established. Scalia isn’t a schmoozer or bridge-builder, which the best CJs (Marshall, Hughes, Taft, Warren) are. Scalia is also old enough that I think the White House and Justice Dept. judge-pickers would tend to cast the net more broadly - they want someone who can stay on the Court a looooooooooooooong time and exert a conservative influence.
That said, Bush DOES tend to pick those whom he regards as personally loyal and ideologically simpatico, and he’s made goofy appointments before without much regard for the institution in which the nominee will be serving (Bolton for the UN, for instance), so who knows? I also think Rove & Co. would LIKE a fight in the Senate, the better to rally the troops.
Why do you limit that statement to “the left”? Do rightists and moderates support torture?