![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
supreme pizza
So, i see in USA Today a small list of potential Supreme Court judge nominees that are "mentioned most often" (and, the bit that pissed me off the most: “Specter said on Fox News Sunday that he would like Bush to pick "somebody who's had more experience, somebody who's been out in the world and has a more varied background." He said someone who has been in politics might be a good choice.” [emphasis mine]). And, being a curious fellow, i want to investigate their history a bit, but being a lazy fellow as well, i decide to just go with what i find at Wikipedia.
Samuel A. Alito Jr. is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. His ideological likeness to United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has earned him the nickname "Scalito."NEXT!
In 2003, [James Harvie] Wilkinson [III] wrote the majority opinion upholding the right of the United States government to detain Yaser Esam Hamdi indefinitely without access to counsel or a court. Hamdi was a U.S. citizen captured during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The decision was overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States.I wonder how often the current batch of Supremes had their decisions overturned from above. NEXT!
[J. Michael] Luttig is seen as fiercely independent, and has criticised other judges in the past for being swayed on ideological grounds rather than judicial argument.The odds of Bush nominating someone who can be described as "fiercely independent" are minuscule. NEXT!
There isn't a lot of info about Roberts (who was a clerk for Rehnquist) or Garza. That leaves only:
[Michael W. McConnell] does believe that the Supreme Court has gone too far in reading the total separation of church and state into the Constitution, and because he... understands that Roe v. Wade has no firm constitutional foundation. He might be acceptable to the left not only because so many liberal professors support him, but also because he has been public in his criticism of Bush v. Gore and the impeachment of President Clinton. However, Democrats may object to McConnell because of his public support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion.Sounds like the perfect compromise: a candidate that will piss both sides off. While Dubya could continue to reach into his pants, feel his mandate, and nominate Scalito or one of his recent controversial appointees like Brown, Owen or Pryor, he could instead opt to throw the Democrats a bone and go with the compromise candidate. His own Souter, so to speak.
I'll hold out hope, though, for Frank "Official Brother of TMQ" Easterbrook.
no subject
Just checked and she's crushing the field right now (up 30 points, and all the candidates add up to about 100, so that doesn't leave much for anyone else). I bet there's a leak, and she's gonna get it. Though the favorite doesn't always win... Paris Olympics was over 70 and I bought London that day and made a bundle.
no subject
no subject
hey, it worked for Cheney.
no subject
no subject
I mean, well, for example, I'm one of those crazy nutjobs who believes the 2nd amendment means what it says. And regardless of my personal beliefs, I think it is morally superior for the FedGov to change or eliminate the 2nd amendment than to make up some new meaning for the 2nd and insist that's what it's always meant or (what seems more akin to today's government), simply doing what they damn well please anyway.
So McConnell's amendment advocacy doesn't bother me in the slightest.
no subject
no subject
I think the litmus-test is undemocratic. Judges should do their jobs well and still be able to believe what they want at home. But I realize this is idealistic.
no subject
no subject
dread piratedark horse Roberts (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.main/index.html)