Supreme Court Stuff
Well, President Bush decided to nominate Roberts for the Chief position, no big surprise. I meant to list that aa a possiblity in my post the other day, but I guess I forgot it. He's well qualified and all that stuff. Scrappleface posted a great pseudo-article that was a take-off of democrats' rhetoric after O'Connor announced her retirement (Scrappleface is definitely recommended reading, by the way; great stuff).
It looks like the Roberts hearings have had their start delayed from Tuesday to Thursday (or possibly later). At first, I thought this was due to the hurricane (because people had suggested doing as much), and that greatly irritated me -- the Senate Judiciary Committee has nothing to due with hurricane relief, and the new Supreme Court term starts in a month (i.e., time is limited), so they should be working on confirming the nominee. I did find out that the delay was to honor Rehnquist, though, which I find acceptable. There are still some (leftist blowhard, drunk, and girl-killer Ted Kennedy, for instance) saying the hearings should be delayed due to the hurricane, but they don't really have any crediblity, as they are all on record opposing the nomination anyways (though not always in so many words). They're desperate for any delay they can find. (Update: I've found out that the Judiciary Committee, then under democrat Patrick Leahy, held confirmation hearings on September 13, 2001; if they could do that then, they can certainly hold hearings now, over a week after the hurricane, and after basically everyone has been evacuated.)
The interesting thing here, which didn't seem like much of a possiblity before Rehnquist died, is that O'Connor might be sticking around for awhile. Since she said that her resignation was effective upon the confirmation of a successor (which is somewhat questionable, legally, though everyone goes along with it), it doesn't look like her successor will be named before the start of the new Court term next month. In fact, I'd put the odds at very nearly 100% against such an event transpiring. Unfortunately, this will lead to more gimmickery among democrats to delay the confirmation of her successor (on the plus side, I think a little bit -- but only a little bit -- of the steam in their opposition to Roberts will subside). I would look for Bush to name the new nominee by the end of the week, and there will be an effort to start hearings by the end of the month or the beginning of October, though they might be delayed. A vote will probably be held before December. The only complication is that O'Connor could potentially withdraw her nomination so that the Court wouldn't have to switch justices in the middle of a term (which could complicate a few cases that were before it, especially any that were 5-4 with O'Connor in the majority, but not really any decided by lopsided results). That seems unlikely as she's wanted to retire for awhile now; the belief is that she wanted to retire after the 2000 election, but she thought it was improper to do so given the Court's role in that election (although several studies have called into doubt whether that really made a difference). Another possiblity is that she could declare herself retired and let the Court operate with only eight members for a period, which seems messy, as it would allow for a tie, but see my previous remark about any 5-4 vote the Court made if she stayed on. So, who really knows.
As for his next pick, I think the two Ediths look good, and he will come under even more pressure to nominate a woman. I heard that one of them (forgot which) is from New Orleans, and some people have said he should nominate her because of that, but that suggestion sickens me, even borderline to the point that I would not want to nominate her. Beyond those two, Luttig and McConnell look like top candidates.
Most interesting is that the two justices most likely to leave the Court next are its two most liberal members, which could spur a real realignment of the Court (while the two new justices to be confirmed could differ from their predecessors, they're likely to be on the right or in the center, so it could move slightly right, be a wash, or slightly towards the center (the last of which would effectively be a wash on this court, but would come into play with future retirements).
It looks like the Roberts hearings have had their start delayed from Tuesday to Thursday (or possibly later). At first, I thought this was due to the hurricane (because people had suggested doing as much), and that greatly irritated me -- the Senate Judiciary Committee has nothing to due with hurricane relief, and the new Supreme Court term starts in a month (i.e., time is limited), so they should be working on confirming the nominee. I did find out that the delay was to honor Rehnquist, though, which I find acceptable. There are still some (leftist blowhard, drunk, and girl-killer Ted Kennedy, for instance) saying the hearings should be delayed due to the hurricane, but they don't really have any crediblity, as they are all on record opposing the nomination anyways (though not always in so many words). They're desperate for any delay they can find. (Update: I've found out that the Judiciary Committee, then under democrat Patrick Leahy, held confirmation hearings on September 13, 2001; if they could do that then, they can certainly hold hearings now, over a week after the hurricane, and after basically everyone has been evacuated.)
The interesting thing here, which didn't seem like much of a possiblity before Rehnquist died, is that O'Connor might be sticking around for awhile. Since she said that her resignation was effective upon the confirmation of a successor (which is somewhat questionable, legally, though everyone goes along with it), it doesn't look like her successor will be named before the start of the new Court term next month. In fact, I'd put the odds at very nearly 100% against such an event transpiring. Unfortunately, this will lead to more gimmickery among democrats to delay the confirmation of her successor (on the plus side, I think a little bit -- but only a little bit -- of the steam in their opposition to Roberts will subside). I would look for Bush to name the new nominee by the end of the week, and there will be an effort to start hearings by the end of the month or the beginning of October, though they might be delayed. A vote will probably be held before December. The only complication is that O'Connor could potentially withdraw her nomination so that the Court wouldn't have to switch justices in the middle of a term (which could complicate a few cases that were before it, especially any that were 5-4 with O'Connor in the majority, but not really any decided by lopsided results). That seems unlikely as she's wanted to retire for awhile now; the belief is that she wanted to retire after the 2000 election, but she thought it was improper to do so given the Court's role in that election (although several studies have called into doubt whether that really made a difference). Another possiblity is that she could declare herself retired and let the Court operate with only eight members for a period, which seems messy, as it would allow for a tie, but see my previous remark about any 5-4 vote the Court made if she stayed on. So, who really knows.
As for his next pick, I think the two Ediths look good, and he will come under even more pressure to nominate a woman. I heard that one of them (forgot which) is from New Orleans, and some people have said he should nominate her because of that, but that suggestion sickens me, even borderline to the point that I would not want to nominate her. Beyond those two, Luttig and McConnell look like top candidates.
Most interesting is that the two justices most likely to leave the Court next are its two most liberal members, which could spur a real realignment of the Court (while the two new justices to be confirmed could differ from their predecessors, they're likely to be on the right or in the center, so it could move slightly right, be a wash, or slightly towards the center (the last of which would effectively be a wash on this court, but would come into play with future retirements).
posted by DC | 10:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home