Centerfield

I had assumed that Rehnquist would be first, and Bush would elevate Scalia to Chief Justice and appoint the first Hispanic to the Court. However, I wonder whether Bush will feel an inclination to appoint a woman to take the place of the first woman on the Court, much like his father decided to appoint an African-American (Thomas) to take the place of the first African-American on the Court (Marshall).

One thing is guaranteed -- this ain't going to be dull.

Posted by: Todd Pearson at July 1, 2005 11:01 AM

Wow. I'm wondering if another shoe will fall. If it turns out 2 justices have to be replaced, then this opens the door for a more widely brokered compromise, a twofer with a moderate conservative and a stauncher arch-conservative getting the nod.

My experience is that when you get a twofer-type situation, people tend to be more amenable to a "let's spread it around and try to make more people happy" dynamic.

Posted by: bk at July 1, 2005 11:04 AM

Fourth of July fireworks get an early start. O'Conner is the justice whose retirement will cause the most rancor of the two possible ones. I expect this to get ugly. Especially on Roe v. Wade since she was an instrumental swing vote. I would not be suprised at all to see SOC still on the bench in October. Might be setting up for a 'nuclear' fall.

Posted by: Jim M at July 1, 2005 11:07 AM

I hope you're right, bk. Assuming there is a second retirement, I think we're about to have a debate on the right about whether they need to hit a "home run" or if they should accept a moderate for one of the positions. Regardless of the ultimate decision, I think this will be a bumpy ride.

Posted by: William Swann at July 1, 2005 11:08 AM

Maybe, but the conservatives aren't in any mood to compromise. I think they will be out for red meat and I don't see any reason to think the GW will disappoint them.

In fact, I suspect the problems he is having with his legislative agenda is probably going to make him less amenable to compromise. This is his chance to bolster his standing (if he needs it) with the right and to put pressure on those Republicans who have not been going along.

I predict the nuclear option will be back on the table before this is done.

Posted by: MWS at July 1, 2005 11:09 AM

Since President Bush is speaking to the nation in about 10 minutes, my only bet is that we will know her replacement very shortly.

Posted by: PatHMV at July 1, 2005 11:09 AM

"Draft Prado"

Posted by: Scott at July 1, 2005 11:12 AM

Let's keep our eye on why this is important, Sandra Day O'Conner is a Republican, but moderate voice on the court. Bush has the ability to move the court to the right with this pick... Let's hope he approaches the issue sensibly.

Furthermore, what does this mean in regards to Rehnquist... Redstate says he is hell bent on becoming the longest serving Cheif Justice. To what end? I can't imagine he stays past this administration.

Posted by: Mathwe at July 1, 2005 11:14 AM

One simple point I'd like to make.

Over the next months, we will no doubt be talking about the merits of moderate justices as compared to more consistently ideological judges. I tend to feel, personally, very unprepared for that discussion -- in part because I just haven't looked at legal or judicial issues very closely, and in part because we don't have a centrist think tank or other resource that offers analyses of these things. Places like Centrists.org and the New America Foundation tend to deal with fiscal issues, economic issues, entitlement reform, etc. They have little to say about the judiciary.

One thing we should be thinking about is marshalling our intellectual resources on judicial issues. I've met one or two folks in the legal profession who are also strongly centrist in their views. We should maybe think about pooling our resources, sponsoring some discussions, maybe even using next month's centrist conference call to bring some folks together and discuss these things.

Posted by: William Swann at July 1, 2005 11:20 AM

If I were the President and wanted to temper expectations I was nominating a strong or controversial conservative, I'd float the name of well-loved on the left John Ashcroft, let the news simmer in the press for a few days, then say such remors have no merit and nominate who I wanted.

Posted by: Scott at July 1, 2005 11:24 AM

You're already in politics, aren't you, Scott? ;-)

Posted by: Tully at July 1, 2005 11:42 AM

Nah Tully, just an acolyte of the "lowering expectations" game. :)

Saw this Yodaism on another site: "Begun the Court Wars have."

Posted by: Scott at July 1, 2005 11:52 AM

SCOTUSblog rounds up some of the big O'Connor swing vote cases.

Let us hope that President Bush's desire to appoint a "Scalia type" will override his desire to appoint his buddy albert and the RNC's desire to claim the "first latino Justice". There must be no more Souters, and Gonzales is proverbially Souterish.

R.e. Prado, I restate my comments on SCOTUSblog (link):

I would like to know what issues would reccomend Judge Prado to Republicans. The Draft Prado site boldly proclaims, "Nominated by Republicans and supported by Democrats", as if to imply that this means that he is an acceptable choice for Republicans now. Justices Stevens, Souter and Kennedy were "Nominated by Republicans", and they are most certainly not supported by them now.

It seems to me that the assumption made by some Democrats is that if there is a candidate whom they are not entirely happy about, the logic of balance demands that Republicans are fairly happy about that candidate. They envisage the scales of justice; they assume that a candidate who tips the scales down on their side thus tips the scales equally up on the GOP side. But this is nonsense; politics is bipolar, but it is not balanced in that manner.

My question for the maintainers of this site is, in what way is Judge Prado reccomended to Republicans? What is Judge Prado's view on the use of foreign law? What is his view on emminent domain? What is his view on federalism? None of these questions are answered by this site.

The previous poster notes that Judge Prado would be a colorfull justice; I like that Justice Scalia is "colorfull" at oral arguments, and that his opinions jump off the page, but this is merely a fortunate happenstance, and is incidental to the far more important question of his judicial philosophy.

I'm not ruling Judge Prado out; I have yet to read any of his opinions (a recent reorganization, I think - a bad one, I submit - of uscourts.gov has made it harder to find opinions), but I think that for the site to imply he has bipartisan support or that he would be acceptable to Republicans - without ever saying why - seems unsupportable.

My joy at the seemingly imminent demise of Stenberg is tempered by the reality that O'Connor's last significant case - Kelo - was actually one of her best opinions.

Posted by: Simon at July 1, 2005 12:04 PM

I agree with Marc that social conservatives aren't likely to want to "spread the love around" if more Justices retire.

I predict a July 4 nominee announcement--just in time to make the big news story for the next business day after the holiday weekend, and just in time to give whomever the president names that patriotic flavor as one more obstacle Senate Democrats have to overcome.

Posted by: The Jaded JD at July 1, 2005 01:21 PM

Simon, another misunderstanding! "Draft Prado" was an sarcastic joke.

Posted by: Scott at July 1, 2005 01:31 PM

Hahaha, I have to stop doing that! ;)

Well, perhaps that will stop anyone else mentioning Prado without answering my points. ;)

Posted by: Simon at July 1, 2005 02:03 PM

Draft Prado means draft Prado.

"Draft Prado" means look what the minority party's supporters are trying this time.

Posted by: Scott at July 1, 2005 02:13 PM

As far as Renquist goes, we'll just have to assume from here on out that the pundits know absolutely nothing...lol. Of course, the day isn't over yet.

That being said, I find it funny that no one mentions Stevens. After all, he is the oldest member on the court. Of course he probably wouldn't retire...I picture him more as the type that will die on the bench. Is he the court's answer to Strom Thurmond? Only time will tell.

Then, of course, there's always Justice Souter. If he keeps "jogging" in these questionable neighborhoods, he might not last that much longer.

Posted by: AR at July 1, 2005 03:19 PM