« Rebuilding New Orleans | Main | America's Anti-Reagan Isn't Hillary Clinton »

September 05, 2005

Well That Was Fast

This morning, President Bush nominated John Roberts for the Chief Justice position directly. It's probably a smart move politically, since it appears that Roberts is set to sail through the confirmation process easily, but as I said yesterday I don't like the idea of imposing a CJ from outside the court. I think that's especially true when the court is highly divided, as it is now. I think one of the primary reasons why Rehnquist was so effective as CJ was that he had 14 years on the court by the time he was nominated. He knew how the court worked from the inside, knew the egos and intellects involved and how to deal with them, and had seen many examples of what not to do by watching Warren Burger. Roberts has none of those things, nor would anyone else coming from the outside. It's not a slam on Roberts himself, who by all accounts is highly capable and will likely grow into the position. But at a time when the court is more divided than ever, I think it's a bad idea. But man, what I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall during the fall term.

So now we know that there will only be two confirmations and not three, so the speculation will concern who will be nominated for the second associate spot. The short list is no doubt essentially the same as before - Gonzales, Garza, Clement, Luttig, Wilkinson, Jones and maybe one or two others. Some are speculating that Bush will have to name a woman for political purposes, but I think a Hispanic is more likely. My early betting line is Garza at 5-1, Gonzales at 6-1. The over/under on how many times over the next few weeks the President mindlessly says his nominee will "faithfully interpret the Constitution" and the number of times Ralph Neas will declare that the nominee will "turn back the clock" on civil rights, women's rights, environmental laws, etc - regardless of who the nominee actually is - will be set at 1400.

Update: Within 10 minutes of writing this and something similar on the ReligionLaw listserv, I got this thoughtful response from Thomas Berg, a law professor from Minnesota:

On the other hand, Earl Warren by all accounts was immediately successful as a leader coming in from the outside (see, e.g., Brown v. Board of Ed). And Harlan Fiske Stone, who'd been an associate justice for 15 years, was quite unsuccessful as chief justice, letting conferences meander and overseeing the Court sliding into some of its worst personal acrimony ever (as opposed to now, when the justices don't get along badly even though they're closely divided on issues). Burger was just a difficult, arrogant personality, and Rehnquist a very suitable one (combining businesslike habits with a light touch and good sense of humor). I think that it has more to do with personal leadership skills -- of which Roberts appears to have many -- as opposed to actual experience. And even on the latter score, Roberts is as knowledgable about the Court and these justices as it's possible to be without having been a justice himself. And they're quite familiar with him too.

All excellent points, certainly. I think the thing I'm most curious about is how Scalia will handle him. Scalia is by far the strongest personality on the court as well as the largest ego, and he was openly campaigning for the CJ position. And he's also, of course, bluntly outspoken. This could be very interesting. Unfortunately, it all takes place in private.

Posted by at September 5, 2005 11:01 AM

Comments

As you may remember, I have been less than enthusiastic about Roberts from his initial nomination, and my suspicion is high that Bush will in fact nominate another "off-the-radar" jurist to the Supreme Court. Possible suspects: Julia Smith Gibbons of the Sixth Circuit, who also happens to be from Tennessee and so is well known to Law & Order actor and erstwhile nominee vetter Fred Dalton Thompson. Religious conservatives would not be pleased with her nomination because of her decision at the appeals level in McCreary County v. ACLU (the Ten Commandments case from Kentucky), but that might aid her in muzzling Democratic opposition. Another possible "off-the-radar" nominee is Jose Linares (a Cuban American) of the Federal District Court for New Jersey.

Posted by: Michael Meckler at September 6, 2005 08:59 AM | permalink

Michael Meckler wrote:

Religious conservatives would not be pleased with her nomination because of her decision at the appeals level in McCreary County v. ACLU (the Ten Commandments case from Kentucky), but that might aid her in muzzling Democratic opposition.

That strikes me as rather ignorant (not on your part, but on the part of those who would be bothered by it), unless there was some evidence that her opinion in that case reflected her genuine position rather than her honest application of precedent. She's not even an appeals court judge, she's a district judge. As such, she is required to apply binding precedent regardless of whether she thinks those precedents were decided correctly. One could reasonably object to the specifics of a ruling, to how reasonably she applied such precedents or how well written a decision is, but to object because she applied precedent in a manner they disagreed with is quite absurd. If religious conservatives are bothered by this, I think that says something about their level of understanding (as a group, not as individuals) of how the courts operate.

As far as the nomination goes, the more I think about it the more I think Garza is the obvious choice. In addition to the fact that he would be the first Hispanic named to the court, something Bush has openly wanted to do, there's one other big advantage - he's from New Orleans. It would be a nice gesture toward the city in the aftermath of Katrina as well. It just makes perfect sense politically.

Posted by: Ed Brayton at September 6, 2005 10:28 AM | permalink

Ed,

She's been sitting on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals since the summer of 2002. The biography I linked to on the DOJ site was for her confirmation hearings at that time. There was brief talk about her nomination being held up in the then Democratic-controlled Senate order to prevent her from hearing the Michigan affirmative action case, but she was never reckoned a controversial nominee and was easily confirmed.

On Garza, I think a lot of folks were enthusiastic about him and thought he should have been the nominee the last time around. Even though the Fifth Circuit (with headquarters in New Orleans) has the deepest bench of solidly conservative appellate judges, all this "Katrina" nomination talk may, unfortunately, only trivialize if not doom a nomination from this circuit. BTW, Garza is a Texan. Edith Clement, who also sits on the Fifth Circuit, is from New Orleans and would be the more obvious "Katrina" pick.

Posted by: Michael Meckler at September 6, 2005 11:15 AM | permalink

Oops, thanks for the correction. I didn't realize Clement was actually from New Orleans. That certainly puts her into the mix. Everyone thought she was the nominee the morning they announced Roberts, so she is obviously on the short list. Makes perfect political sense, a conservative female from New Orleans.

Posted by: Ed Brayton at September 6, 2005 11:41 AM | permalink

Post a comment




Remember Me?





(you may use HTML tags for style)

 
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----



Rankings and Aggregators
Technocrati
Blogdom of God
Who Links Here

Site Meter