For President Bush to unite his base and nominate someone who conservatives can stand behind. Someone with a clearly articulated judicial philosophy. Someone with the intellectual firepower to overwhelm the judiciary committee. Someone who the average citizen can recognize as being highly qualified. There are a bevy of candidates who fit these criteria (Alito, Brown, Owen, Luttig, McConnell, Corrigan, etc., etc.). Will Bush go with one of these nominees? He can't really be scared of the likes of NARAL, can he? We all remember how some pro-choice advocates felt compelled to embarrass themselves with misleading commercials about John Roberts, don't we?
Matthew Franck in Bench Memos points to something I've been thinking:
The Saddest Thing? Wasted time. Three and a half weeks since the Miers nomination. Nearly eight weeks since the death of William Rehnquist. And we still don't have a nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, who announced her intention to retire on July 1. Every stumble and delay along the way means O'Connor remains on the Court that much longer, and that's bad for the law, the Constitution, and the country.
Will this new nominee be on the court in time to be involved in important cases like Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood? Or will the Miers mess mean that O'Connor gets to have a say?
The SCOTUSblog notes that: "The President said on Thursday he would name a new nominee "in a timely manner." Even if that occurs promptly, there is no chance the Senate would be able to clear the nomination in time for a new Justice to join the Court for the early November sitting, and little chance for the late November-early December sitting. Thus, it is very likely that Justice O'Connor will be on the bench through at least the end of the year. And as a result, the desire of Bush followers to have O'Connor replaced before the Justices take up the new abortion cases on Nov. 30 appears to have been frustrated by Miers' withdrawal."
Talk Back - leave a comment