Jul 1, 2005

Short List Offered by Slate.com

Rather than re-invent... here is a listing compiled by Slate.com (no endorsement) of prospective short-listed replacements for O'Connor.

Short List

8 comments:

André said...

I'd be curious to hear who the four of you would endorse from this list.

Dan Colgan said...

My personal preference is Samuel Alito (filabuster analysis aside) due to his strictly conservative stance on Abortion and Separation interpretation.

My realistic opinion of who the president will nominate is either the current Attorney General Mr. Gonzalez or Judge Edith Clement.

With AG Gonzalez he will have a fight from his own supporters over an individual who has not been as sympathetic to the right to life cause as the others but he would probably gain points with the democrats

With Judge Clement, the President could enjoy both worlds - a woman, and a judicial history not yet as well defined (however that can backfire as it did with Justice O'Connor)

It will be an interesting battle.

David Bowie said...

My choices are as follows, based purely on their pro-life position: Samuel Alito, Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, John Roberts & Edith Clement.

Luttig, Alito, Roberts & McConnell are more acceptable, in my view on church-state issues. Clement's position was not indicated in the Slate.com article.

I did not include Alberto Gonzelez in these choices because I believe the Memo on the Geneva Convention may hurt his nomination.

Gort said...

PA, I just stumbled upon your site recently and really enjoy it. What caught my eye is your header, I could not agree more. Let's have a discussion without all the name calling. I don't get all worked up about judges. They have a way of surprising you. As President Eisenhower once said when asked if he had ever made any mistakes, yes and two of them are sitting on the Supreme Court.

David Bowie said...

gort--First I liked the Eisenhower quote.

Second--The courts don't have a way of surprising you, they have a way of scaring the he## out of you. I'm sorry to hear that this issue doesn't get you very fired up, because for myself it just about sends my blood pressure through the roof. What would really shock me is if they would actually interpret the Constitution instead of trying to rewrite it.

Dan Colgan said...

I have to echo DB's sentiment as well. If the selection of Supreme Court justices doesn't fire you up it really should.

I am thankful for your desire for friendly debate. I am glad there are others who share the goal. I look forward to seeing more of your input in the future.

What is you perception of the current event and how do you think it will play out?

Gort said...

I hope it doesn't turn into another Bork circus. But I'm sure it will. I did not agree with many of Mr. Bork's positions but he very qualified and would have been a fine Justice. In a way I'm glad this will keep them busy for a while and prevent them from passing some of the more silly legislation as they have lately. I'm thinking of the Real ID Act and the flag burning amendment. The Real ID Act was passed at the last moment with few or no hearings and is going to be a big headache for the states and will drive the people nuts. It will do very little to address the problems of terrorism or immigration. With the epidemic of flag burning going on Congress had to act. I think these guys have too much time on their hands.

David Bowie said...

With so many critical issues hanging in the balance, i.e., abortion, eminent domain, 10 Commandments, etc., I'm afraid a "Bork circus" is just what we are going to get. The make-up of the Court will determine the future of our country for the 50-60 years. God help us all if it goes the wrong way!