It seems everyone in the blogosphere has an opinion on who should replace O'Connor on the Supreme Court after Roberts is likely confirmed. I'll throw in my 2-cents.
Bush promised that he would nominated people in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. I think he fibbed, but has come close enough to just get away with it. He (sadly) isn't going to give us more Scalias/Thomas's, but rather more Rehnquists. The difference is between a judge who will actively roll back the mistakes of the past decades versus a judge who will minimize future harm. That's the reason I still continue to maintain that the war over the judiciary is essentially lost. I think its a shame, but I still can't bring myself to start a revolt over having more respectable "Rehnquists" as opposed to not having more ideal "Scalias" (I suspect others feel the same on this).
So who are my picks?
If Bush doesn't care about sparking an all out war with Democrats (and Arlen Specter-style Republicans), I'd go balls-to-the-wall and send up Janice Rogers Brown.
However, I think the John Roberts nomination shows that Bush will remain careful about trying to thread the political needle with his court nominees. If that is the case, then I 'd recommend Alex Kozinski. Love this guy to death, even though nobody could really say he is a "Scalia-style" judge. I'd say he's an original - and one to cherish at that. He'd be far-and-away the best "compromise" candidate that would throw the Dems off balance during confirmation hearings.
Ironic that the ideal candidate also fulfills the "minority" political considerations while my "compromise" candidate doesn't....
Posted by Justin Levine at September 21, 2005 08:32 PM | TrackBack