ConfirmThem

Actually, it's coming up in 5 minutes, but who's counting?

New post over at JCG's blog indicates that the White House is vetting some possible nominees in the event of a vacancy at the end of the court's term.

NO ONE IS EXPECTING A VACANCY, but they're doing it to be prepared.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/2007/06/a_hat_trick.html

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/SupremeCourt/story?id=3235598&page=1

Discuss.

The short-list as given is-

Priscilla Owen
Janice Rogers Brown
Diane Sykes
Edith Brown Clement
Loretta Preska
Raoul Cantero

Okay, seriously, I'm leaving the office.

If a vacancy opens up, I say nominate Janice Rodgers Brown. I think it would almost impossible for the Dems to remain united in voting her down. She's attractive and articulate. She's been consistently attacked and abused by the Left for her legal opinions. Therefore I think she'll be grounded enough to withstand the Beltway pressure to move left.

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1936

How in the world did this woman get on the short list? She has no major colleges or universities in her background, has no COA/SCOTUS clerkships, no experience in the Executive Branch, and no experience as a U.S. Attorney or COA judge. Can anyone say STEALTH NOMINEE? I don't care what her politics are, she has SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR and HARRIET MIERS written all over her. I'm sorry, but I don't want to have to rely her boyfriend (Nathan Hecht, maybe?) to tell me how conservative she is or that she goes to church every Sunday and opposes abortion. Bush, PLEASE, no more "trust me" nominees! If this name is being floated to see what the response is, I say: "UGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Bobo, let's do our research first, okay? Ed.

He's sealed tight in his WH bubble.

This is a bizarre list, from great (JRB) to iffy, representing I'm sure the range of backers. More important, I guess, is who's managing the selection process on the inside this time?

In light of recent (and ongoing) events, I'm not optimistic that somebody like Sykes can get the nod over a Bush crony. I suppose Cantero is the most promising of the latter.

Is that AGAG's fumblings have taken him off the table.

I don't think it's fair to call someone a Bush "crony" if they've never even worked in the White House or anywhere else in Washington D.C.

After getting my frustrations out about Loretta Preska, I have returned to sanity. Basically, I find most people on the list totally acceptable ideologically. Each, however, has a different degree of confirmability. As everyone already knows, I think some are DOA.

1) Owen - DOA due to previous filibuster, poor performance in previous COA hearing, unprepossessing appearance, shy personality and plodding writing style.

2) JRB - DOA due to previous filibuster, overblown rhetoric and record for supporting Bush's "unitary executive" policies on D.C. Circuit. She does, however, have the best life story of all the other nominees, an electricity about her and a good writing style.

3) Sykes - consistently conservative voting record on COA (no Wisconsin v. Oakley cracks, Andrew, until you have read and summarized the many good opinions she has written that I listed earlier), good writing style, good appearance, youthful, not filibustered earlier.

4) Edith Brown Clement - consistently conservative voting record on COA, good appearance, not filibustered earlier, best confirmation record in Dem-controlled Senate (97-0).

5) Loretta Preska - see my previously undisguised disgust. I will admit that her law school (NYU - LLM) is not that bad, but was it a top 50 law school in 1978? And how about Fordham in 1973?

6) Raoul Cantero - consistently conservative record on Florida Supreme Court, good appearance, youthful, but is the grandson of the last dictator of Cuba, previously wrote an anti-abortion op-ed in Miami and was the lawyer for an anti-Castro Cuban terrorist Orlando Bosch. The Dems will rip him apart for his perceived support of terrorism ( see this article: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2049)

My strategy:

1) Nominate JRB first. If she is voted down, then

2) Nominate Diane Sykes or Edith Brown Clement.

Despite her credentials, Priscilla Owen just reeks of Texas cronysim. She has been both a guest and hostess of George and Laura Bush on more than one occasion. In addition, she is well-known as a protegee of Karl Rove, who managed some of her Texas Supreme Court campaigns. Plus, she also dated Harriet Miers' old boyfriend, Nathan Hecht. Have any of the other people on the short list has such contact with George, Karl or Harriet? No one is claiming that JRB frequently lunches at the White House, that Diane Sykes barbeques with Karl or that Edith Brown Clement shops with Harriet Miers. No, Priscilla is too involved in the lives of the people the Dems would most like to investigate at the moment not to be considered a loyal Bushie.

May was an oddly mixed month for President Bush’s judicial nominees. Progress on Circuit nominees was almost as good as could be expected (and better than April), while the District Court process remained at a crawl, although two long-stalled Michigan nominees finally moved ahead at the last moment (May 24th). As a reference aid for other readers and posters on this site, I compile a monthly summary of progress on Article III federal judicial nominations. Following are the somewhat ambiguous figures for May:

Circuit Confirmations: 1 (Livingston)
District Confirmations: 1
Circuit Nominees Reported by SJC: 1 (Livingston)
District Nominees Reported by SJC: 5
Circuit Nominees had Hearings: 1 (Southwick))
District Nominees had Hearings: 2 (1 first hearing)
# of Judicial Nomination Hearings: 1 (5/10/07)
Circuit Nominations: 0
District Nominations: 2
Total Nominees Pending on 5/31: 28 (5 CCA, 23 DJ)
Nominees in Committee with hearing: 3 (1 CCA: Southwick, 2 DJ)
Nominees on Executive Calendar on 5/31: 6 (0 CCA, 6 DJ)
New Vacancies: 1 (0 CCA, 1 DJ)
Total Vacancies on 5/31: 49 (13 CCA, 36 DJ)

The Senate adhered to the one Circuit confirmation per month standard in May. The lapse in April will not be made up; wasting a month was part of the Democrats’ CCA delay strategy. 2nd Circuit nominee Debra Livingston was reported favorably by the SJC to the Floor on May 3rd and confirmed only six days later on May 9th. 5th Circuit nominee Leslie Southwick had a hearing on May 10th, and somewhat unexpectedly was placed on the Agenda at the Committee‘s Business Meeting on May 24th. Since Democrat’s exercised their one-week delay, Southwick should be voted on at the next Business Meeting on June 7th unless unexpected complications arise. The leftist special interest groups (AFJ, PFAW, et al) and SJC Democrat staffer minions are presumably working hard over the recess to fabricate those “unexpected complications”. Some of these manufactured invectives have been heating up in the last week, especially in regard to the “racial slur’ case, for which Southwick joined in the opinion but did not write it.

However, it is unlikely that they will be successful. Southwick is a distinguished and respected jurist, and gave a very impressive performance at his hearing this month. The leftist groups will work hard to smear him as a racial bigot, but their over-the-top use of the judicial racial quota ploy indicates the flimsiness of their position. No Democrat Senator laid a glove on him at the hearing, nor did they try very hard to do so. I expect Southwick to be voted out of Committee on June 7th with a handful of negative votes (Kennedy and perhaps 3-4 others), and to be confirmed by June 23rd with fairly minor opposition, but more than the three previous nominees combined encountered.

After that comes Keisler or Elrod. The best one can hope for is a hearing for either by the end of June. Although Keisler had a hearing last August, Democrats will almost certainly require another one. If it’s a “show trial” type of hearing, his nomination is almost certainly dead. I can only see him being confirmed as part of an inside Senate Deal, possibly involving the transfer of the 12th D.C. Circuit seat to the 9th Circuit, or possibly some other legislation. If the next considered nominee is Elrod, she will probably be confirmed within a month without major problems, and the Keisler battle will be deferred until late July and September.

On the District Court front, the continued slowdown was somewhat unexpected. Only one confirmation for the second month in a row, only one new nominee got a hearing (O’Grady), and two with hearings are still in Committee without a vote (Mauskopf and Jonker-on agenda for June 7). Six nominees from the group nominated on January 9th have not yet been given a hearing. But there are six nominees on the Executive Calendar, and the 3 Michigan nominees are finally moving forward (presumably Jonker will get a favorable Committee vote on June 7th). There will likely be at least 5-6 District Judge confirmations in June. After the Michigan 3, the supply of nominees with previous hearings in 2006 will be exhausted. Unless Democrats increase the pace of hearings by June, there will be a maximum of 3 DJ confirmations per month from July onward.

Bottom Line: Two 4th Circuit (N.C. and S.C.) nominations should be made in June, preferably next week. In my March Progress Report, I set a Seven-per-Month standard for confirmations and hearings (1 CCA and 6 DJ). The results for April and May fell far short of this standard. Confirmations in June may meet or approach this figure, but hearings probably will not, since Leahy & Co. have held only one hearing a month for the last four months. Any month that passes without a CCA confirmation (like April) cannot be made up as long as Democrats remain the Senate majority. Southwick should be confirmed by late June. After that, events hinge on whether Senate Democrats choose to proceed with Keisler or Elrod: either a battle in July or the battle will be deferred until later this summer. June will be important, but as long as Southwick is confirmed in a timely manner, the major confrontation will be in July or September.

{For reference, my April “Judicial Nominee Progress Report” appeared on Tuesday, May 1st, as post #1 in the thread “Zero in April, Two in May”]

I wonder if the slowing down of district court confirmations is the subtle result of McConnell's push on COA confirmations. Maybe the Dems are telling McConnell - "okay, we'll speed up COA confirmations but at the expense of the pace of district court confirmations. We won't allow both groups to be rapidly processed. That would hurt us too much with our liberal constituency."

1) All Republicans - 9 yes votes

2) Democrats - 7 no votes, 3 yes votes

Leahy - no
Kennedy - no
Biden - no
Kohl - yes
Feinstein - no
Feingold - no
Schumer - no
Durbin - no
Cardin - yes
Whitehouse - yes

3) Total - 12 yes, 7 no

Some district judge approved by Poppy, Moynihan & David Dinkins? And Hillary & Schumer would have to approve her replacement? And Fordham '73 & NYU Law '78 were prolly not hotbeds of Originalism.

Good grief. How on Earth did she get on that list?

Cantero could be tarred as both a Jeb crony, and a lightweight in comparison to JGR/Sam/RBG/Breyer, in addition to his other problems. And he'll receive little if any support from non-Cuban Hispanics.

Owen would get attacked worse than Bork & Thomas combined and not hold up as well as either.

Nominate JRB while telling them that Easterbrook will be next. If she doesn't make it, then go to Sykes I guess, as long as there's a deal in place with Kohl & Feingold to immediately confirm her replacement.

At least the Callahan nonsense is over with (which likely shows that Rove is done for), although she looks like Scalia compared to Preska at first blush.

I doubt there'll be a Vacancy, but HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!

for the thread.

Glad to have some virtual meat to work with re vetting of possible nominees for an unexpected vacancy.

Read the previous sentence three times if you want a headache!

Senator Cornyn as a SCOTUS nominee?

I see that you wrote to Jan Crawford Greenburg on her blog about Allison Eid. Good question! I liked your other questions as well.

Thanks.

For whatever it's worth, this NY Times article says Preska was recommended by D'Amato:

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F10615FB355D0C75...

Nice to see that Maureen Mahoney is off the list as well.

Greenburg earlier predicted that Mahoney would only be the choice in 2008. She said that JRB, Owen and Sykes would be the choices in 2007.

I find the list quite acceptable, though I don't know anything about Preska. A few of you (uh, BoBo!) are pretty harsh on her without knowing anything about her. She's spent 15 years on one of the strongest District Courts in the country, so I can't say she's a Harriet Miers. And BillM, Dinkins would have had nothing to do with her nomination. It would have been Senator D'Amato, most likely.

http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2004/10/judicial_sighta_1.htm...

" Judge Loretta A. Preska (S.D.N.Y.). In a word: magnificent. Tall, thin, elegant. Great bone structure, perfectly coiffed silver hair. Note to self: nominate for superhotties contest next year? Fabulous dark blue suit. Who designed? Dramatic, extra-long jacket, white-trimmed lapels; tapers down towards clasp, then flares out again--gorgeous cut. Nice accessories: big gold eagle pin, ladies-who-lunch pearl necklace, matching earrings. Delivers intro like newscaster, smooth as butter. Gestures grandly with long fingers; flawless manicure. WOW! Judicial style score: 9.5."

No politicians on SCOTUS; nonononono.

I think Preska is on the list as a token/decoy. They can say that they had a broad list, encompassing the full spectrum of the GOP, etc.

Then they can say, "Well, it came down to JRB/Sykes & Preska, and JRB/Sykes' resume was clearly superior..." Note how this would not work using Ikuta or Mahoney (another notable & very pleasant omission).

And Mexican Hispanics would scream bloody murder if Callahan were passed over, plus her & Mahoney are pre-approved by Schumer & Reid, so if they were on this list and a vacancy arose the Dems would instantly harp on them as the "bipartisan, consensus, moderate, mainstream nominee".

Cantero is almost certainly on there as a token Hispanic they have no real intention of nominating.

The only thing I would add to this list would've been Easterbrook. Aside from the fact he's the most qualified person in the country under 60, I think you need a white male superstar for 'fallback/threat' purposes, i.e. "We tried to nominate a woman/minority but the Dems obstructed..."

And frankly, I think there are at least 10-20 Dems who would be very uncomfortable with a Borking of Easterbrook, and would have great difficulty voting against him & then looking in the mirror.

I agree with BoBo. If this is the real list & there's a miracle pelican, it'll go JRB then Sykes. JRB prolly has a 30-40% chance, and it would be WWIII & IV, either way. Sykes would sail thru afterward with at least 70 votes.

http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=3518

"A federal judge has ruled that New York City must allow religious groups to rent space for their meetings in public schools after classes and on weekends, vindicating a decade-long struggle by an evangelical Christian church in the Bronx to hold its Sunday services in a city school.

The decision, handed down late Wednesday by Judge Loretta A. Preska of Federal District Court in Manhattan, made permanent a preliminary order that she had issued in July 2002. It allows the church, the Bronx Household of Faith, to meet for worship for four hours at midday every Sunday at Public School 15, on Andrews Avenue in the Bronx.

Judge Preska's new ruling is virtually the opposite of one she wrote in the same case in 1996, when she agreed with the school board's decision to bar the group from meeting in a public school building for "religious worship." Judge Preska has now brought the case into line with a 2001 decision by the Supreme Court, which found that religious teachings on school premises were no different from other secular lessons about "morals and character development."

Judge Preska found that the Christian group, besides its religious services, was also engaged in community activities like singing and socializing. She ruled that barring the group from the public school building on Sundays would violate its right to free expression."

http://blog.nam.org/archives/2005/09/judge_deals_blo.php

"Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Loretta Preska of the Southern District of New York dismissed the suit, noting (correctly) that this was a political issue brought before the court. "Cases presenting political questions are consigned to the political branches that are accountable to the people, not to the judiciary, and the judiciary is without power to resolve them", she said. She went on to say that the alleged actions of the defendant utility companies "present non-justiciable political questions", adding, "political questions are not the proper domain of judges.""

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20530

"In Libraries Association v. Pataki, which overturned a New York law restricting online content, U.S. District Court Judge Loretta A. Preska identified the Internet as a “national preserve” in which only the federal government may legislate. As Preska’s ruling stated: “Typically, states’ jurisdictional limits are related to geography; geography, however, is a virtually meaningless construct on the Internet. Regulation by any single state can only result in chaos, because at least some states will likely enact laws subjecting Internet users to conflicting obligations. (T)hese inconsistent regulatory schemes could paralyze the development of the Internet altogether. Haphazard and uncoordinated state regulation can only frustrate the growth of cyberspace.”"

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/060118

http://daleyweather.blogspot.com/2002_02_24_archive.html

"I've just done the crash internet course on tobacco regulations, at least as far as mail order sales go. There are two distinct issues. First are sales within the United States. Like all mail order sales these avoid state taxes as long as the sale is from outside of the buyers state. States like California have tried to impose their taxes on residents who order from out of state vendors but the legality is questionable. New York state tried to ban mail order sales but a Federal court tossed that out.

U.S. District Court Judge Loretta Preska said in a 77-page ruling that she respected the state’s effort to crack down on distributing tobacco to minors, but that lawmakers cannot isolate the state from the national economy....“This lawsuit was an important decision because it set precedent for banning cigarette sales in other states,” said Mark Smith, a spokesman for Brown and Williamson, which is based in Louisville, Ky. “It also allowed Internet shopping restrictions.” Smith added that the case was won because the U.S. Constitution is very clear that state governments can place no restrictions on interstate business."

Well, I may have spoken to soon about Preska. She has cited Alito in several opinions, and she used the phrase "better left to legislatures" in an environmental opinion.

My guess now is that Chuck & Hilly have blocked her from ever being elevated to COA level.

Blogger Stephen Macklin recommended her for Sandy's spot back in '05, after reading just the environmental opinion.

The Dems would certainly scream she's a clean air hating, religious nut, were she nominated to SCOTUS.

Your explanation is plausible, but I wonder if the Dem-Left base really cares or even knows about District Judges. A large part of that barbaric rabble (excepting the academic element) probably doesn't even know the difference between trial and appellate judges. That's probably one reason why Leahy has dumbed down the SJC site list of confirmed judges.

Why the Dems have slowed DJ confirmations so much baffles me. It seems to be such a gratuitous slap in the face. Apparently they realize that virtually no one cares, so that they can get away with this obstruction. McConnell should let them know forcefully that conservatives do care.

On the possible SCOTUS pick, it has to be Sykes. Even the bigot liberals may be wary of assaulting her Catholic religion directly, and if they try to weasily, it will blow up in their faces. Absolutely NOT JRB: she is unconfirmable and her unsuccessful nomination would use up several months and waste 2-3 CCA confirmations in the process. Not Owen: clearly unconfirmable. Clement: there's a whiff of Sandy or Souter about her, we don't need mysteries. And why did the Dem Senate confirm her unanimously in 2001? Cantero? Maybe as a Fourth Pick if lightning strikes twice in the next 8 months. Preska? I've never heard of her. NO

Hey G Gordon Liddy went to Fordham, so there is hope for Preska!! :)

http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/284/11345

"Judge Loretta A. Preska was appointed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1992. A graduate of the College of St. Rose and Fordham Law School with a master's degree from New York University School of Law, Judge Preska practiced law privately for nearly twenty years before taking the bench.

Judge Preska exemplifies the kind of judge America's Founders and the Framers of America's Constitution expected: a judge (in the tradition of Judge Friendly) who follows the law instead of overreaches to impose her or his personal views.

Examples:

(1) In ALA v. Pataki, Judge Preska issued a preliminary injunction against the New York Communications Decency Law, reasoning that the Internet is an area of commerce that should be marked off as a "national preserve" to protect online speakers from inconsistent laws that could "paralyze development of the Internet altogether."

(2) In Bronx Household of Faith vs. Board of Education of the City of New York, Judge Preska ultimately adopted Judge Alito's "viewpoint discrimination" rational and upheld the rights of religious groups such as evangelical churches to rent New York public schools for worship services, because nonreligious groups (such as the Girl Scouts and even a Bangladeshi dance troupe) had been allowed to meet in these same New York public schools.

Judge Preska originally ruled against the church in 1997. After the Supreme Court's 2001 ruling against the New York School Board in Good News Club vs. Milford Central School District, however, the church asked Judge Preska to reconsider her decision. She reversed herself in 2002, issuing a temporary injunction allowing religious groups to meet in schools and made the injunction permanent on November 16, 2005 (2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28138). (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

Judge Preska rejected (rightly) the argument that allowing worship at a public school would violate the Establishment Clause, citing a recent decision by... Judge Alito! In 2004, Judge Alito held that it would be unconstitutional "viewpoint discrimination" "to exclude a group simply because it is controversial or divisive" and overturned a school policy forbidding evangelical leafleting in New Jersey. Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey, Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist., 386 F.3d 514, 527 (3d Cir. 2004).

Blogger Stephen Macklin concluded that Judge Preska was the best replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and enthusiastically explained why in this fact-filled tribute posted on September 18, 2005:

"Replacing O'Conner
"Since this blog more often than not deals with political issues I feel obligated to offer my suggestion for who should be nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Conner on the Supreme Court. I mean isn't offering such unwanted uneducated advice one of the reasons to have a blog in the first place?

"I will admit that I know nothing about this judge except for her ruling on one case, but based on her opinion in that one case, I've decided to put her name forward.

"Loretta A. Preska of the U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York. Nominated to the court George H.W. Bush in 1992

"The case I know about (hat tip to Greenie Watch) involves a suit filed by 8 states to cap output from coal fired power plants.

"'The plaintiffs - including Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and New York - sought a court order requiring the nation's top five power producers to cut carbon dioxide emissions every year for at least a decade, by an amount to be determined later by the court.'

"Judge Preska dismissed the case.

"'U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska in Manhattan ruled that the case brought by state Attorney General Bill Lockyer and prosecutors for seven other states and New York City raised sweeping questions of public policy best resolved by Congress and the president, not the courts.'

"Just that alone makes her qualified in my book.

"'In her ruling, Preska said the plaintiffs sought "to impose by judicial fiat" limits on carbon dioxide emissions that Congress and President Bush explicitly refused to mandate.

"'These actions present non-justiciable political questions that are consigned to the political branches, not the judiciary,' Preska concluded.

"Lockyer said the opposite is true.

'“'When Congress has not taken action on a pressing environmental issue, states have the right to take legal action to protect themselves,' Lockyer said in a press release responding to the dismissal.

"Which of course in translation means, when we are unable to enact our agenda in congress because we are the minority we will attempt to assert our will via the courts.

"I did a little Google search on Judge Preska and most of what I saw I liked. Of course, I have no idea what I am talking about, so take it for what its worth.

"I did find this interesting write up on Preska at the blog Underneath Their Robes:

"'And now, a brief aside on Judge Preska. One of A3G's favorite correspondents writes:

"'I am a huge fan of Judge Preska, before whom I have tried two cases to completion, one with a jury, one without. A finer judge would be hard to imagine. Judge Preska is highly intelligent, professional, courteous and correct, patient, fundamentally pleasant and good-humored, fair, judicious and open-minded, and yet appropriately firm. Although she seldom displays even asperity, let alone anger, she does not suffer fools gladly. Her outstanding temperament and considerable intellect combine to make her a model district judge. (Just today, as it happens, I took over a pending case originally assigned to Preska and cursed a mighty oath upon seeing that my predecessor had unwisely stipulated to have the case tried by the magistrate judge). She is also, as your correspondent noted, possessed of striking, patrician good looks, faultlessly elegant, beautifully dressed, accessorized and coiffed, and in general, a treat for all the senses. She would be a great interview subject for you.'"

On January 17, 2006, The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies and The American Constitutional Society co-sponsored a debate on the Alito nomination, the Supreme Court and the abortion debate at the Cornell Club in midtown Manhattan.

Mrs. Long advocated confirmation of Judge Alito's nomination, overruling Roe v. Wade and trusting each state to regulate abortion, as the Constitution envisioned.

Jennifer K. Brown called for the rejection of Judge Alito's nomination on the ground (among others) that he is "paternalistic" and cannot be "trusted" to "recognize constitutional protection" for the "right of abortion" and the continuation of "quiet, lawful abortions" in a "dignified and safe" manner in order to give women "control over their lives" and society the "invisible benefits of legal abortion."

The speakers each made an opening statement, questioned the other, and answered audience questions.

Judge Preska described both speakers as "informed and articulate observers and advocates" and moderated the debate with grace and impartiality (saying not a word about the merits of the debate). Yet some disgruntled "feminists" who apparently kept count and determined that more men than women were selected by Judge Preska during the time that both speakers took questions from the audience.

To the best of my knowledge, no men in the audience grumbled that the speakers and the moderator were all females; more men than women sought to ask questions; given the nature of the subject matter, the knowledge ability of both speakers and the inevitable time constraints, not all men or women who had questions were chosen to ask them and the only question ruled out of order by Judge Preska (rightly, since it involved "the unitary executive," not abortion) was asked by a man; and the only other person chided by Judge Preska (for trying to speechify after his question was answered) also was a man. Apparently, some feminists never can be satisfied."

Who are the two Jews and the two Protestants on the list?

Ginsburg and Breyer are Jews, and Stevens and Souter are Protestants. All the conservatives are Catholic.

JRB and Owen are Protestants. Diane Sykes, Edith Brown Clement and Raoul Cantero are Catholic. I don't know about Preska.

look at all these posts already. The open thread was needed again--two days in a row!

This unknown District judge had better be a decoy. If she's so great, why was she passed over FOUR times by this administation for a 2nd Circuit (N.Y.) nomination? No unknown stealth nominees for the most pivotal potential S.C. nomination of recent times, Please! Bush could be in danger of alienating his very last remaining supporters.

Nomination list: Sykes, Williams, McConnell, Easterbrook, Estrada. Isn't that enough?

Technically, Preska has only been passed over three times for a Second Circuit vacancy. Although Bush has named four judges to the Second Circuit, one was for Vermont and not New York.

As my initial comment about Preska reveals, I am in total agreement. Regardless of her politics, Preska does not have the necessary credentials to warrant a nomination. I am sure that she has plenty of district court opinions to offer as proof of her conservatism, but as a district court judge she is severely restricted in terms of following precedent. How would she vote without any restrictions as would happen on the Supreme Court? I don't want to have to rely again on hearsay evidence from relatives, friends and co-workers to guess about her real jurisprudence.

Could the White House know something that we (and Greenford) do not?

If Chuckie was making a fuss about putting her on the 2nd circuit, she should have been placed on the DC in Bush's first term.

After being passed over twice, I don't think it will be Clement (as others have already argued), or anyone nominated in Bush's first 2 years.

I also don't think it will be Easterbrook, Brown, or anyone born before 1950.

I'll wager on Owen being the nominee, with chance of confirmation being 50/50.

Brown
Estrada
Easterbrook

in that order.

... and Rudman recommended Souter.

Conservatives will only be nominated when conservatives are in charge of the selection process, not moderates such as Rudman and D'Amato.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand better leadership.

Micheal Luttig!

On all the relevent issues, except for his support for Bush's extraconstitutional detention of Padilla, it is a near mathematical certainty that he will cast the proper vote. Luttig won't disappoint as Kennedy, O'Conner and Souter have done. The other short-listers all have some doubts in this regard. And, he is relatively young. He could cast the correct vote for thirty years.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives reject their current moderate leadership in favor of true conservatives.

Pat Buchanan has called for conservatives to "repudiate" GWB!

This is fantastic news!

http://vdare.com/buchanan/070601_break.htm

Certain posters here have stated that I am merely here to "bash Bush." That was never true. I have always been here to repudiate GWB.

It is beside the point whether, or not, GWB is a good moderate, or a bad moderate. The real point is that in either case he isn't a conservative!

The conservative movement will only lead the country to right when its leadership leads the movement in that direction.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand the man at the rudder of the conservative ship consistantly steers the ship to the right.

I really can't decide who would be better. Sykes, Estrada and Brown would all do a great job. Lets have RBG, Stevens and Souter all retire, so that we don't need to only pick one!

As explosive as she'd be, she's ultimately got a good shot:

She got 56 votes last time, all reps + Nelson. She's done nothing to warrant any LESS support, so even with the net loss of 6 seats we still have 50 votes (plus Cheney).

The most likely defector would have been Chafee, and he's not a factor anymore.

(Plus, even if she loses, it's well worth any time/COA loss to make the Dems look AWFUL by defeating her...we can always get EBC or Sykes anytime later!)

http://law.fordham.edu/news-pix/news-preska.jpg

Always a good thing to see.

Do you still not know who President Bush is and how he operates?

He will nominate a Hispanic woman.

If there is a vacancy he will nominate Consuelo Callahan.

Aurel does have a better insight into the thinking of GWB.

Making "wish" lists, and fantasizing about how much better the Court will be when a liberal retires is pointless. Bush is a moderate who is going to appoint a fellow moderate. No significant turn to the right can be expected.

Naming "the first Hispanic Justice" would an arrogant exercize in "legacy building" for GWB. Consuelo Callahan would be precisely that exercize in "legacy building." If in doing so the conservative movement is set back a generation, so be it.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives insist on true conservatives lead their movement.

Are you one of the people repudiating Bush? As I recall, when we were all discussing Callahan, Greenburg said in her book that she wasn't even being considered for the openings that went to Roberts and Alito. I think Callahan is just one of the Dems' many pipe dreams.

At this point, Bush is desperate to get conservatives on board in order to get his amnesty bill passed. It makes perfect sense at the moment for Bush to choose a SCOTUS nominee who will rally conservatives to his side, if just long enough to get his "legacy" legislation passed. There is no doubt he knows that JRB or Sykes will get him the extra brownie points he wants with the people he needs now to help him in the Senate.

I agree, though, that next year Bush probably could care less about the conservatives since he will be packing his bags already for Texas. If a vacancy occurs in the summer of 2008, I definitely think Connie Callahan and Maureen Mahoney will be front and center in the nomination spotlight.

But we're not discussing a "wish list". We're discussing a list of candidates that was leaked to a journalist by the Bush administration.

Also, whatever other flaws he may have (from a conservative perspective), Bush has not been a "moderate" on judges. Alito and Roberts were home runs for conservatives, as were lower court appointments like JRB, Pryor, Kavanaugh, etc. Miers was awful, for sure, but her appointment resulted from factors other than a desire to appoint a moderate: cronyism, the need to make a diversity appointment, the wish to avoid a confirmation battle, etc. Some of these impulses might lead to another bad appointment, should Bush get the chance, so those of us on the right need to be vigilant and make our voices heard. We shouldn't throw up our hands and resign ourselves to pessimism that is completely unwarranted based on this President's past nominations.

whether or not she's someone we should support (and you've unearthed some good and some potentially troubling), it's exciting to see a new name on the list! I'm not sure the fact that she is "just" a trial judge should disqualify her, or even necessarily indicate she was "passed over" (perhaps she likes being a trial judge; perhaps Clinton or Schumer balked at her elevation - which would be a good indicator of conservatism, but perhaps not so good of one of confirmability, though being a more unknown district judge, it would probbaly be harder for them to articulate a rational opposition that would resonate with the public). I am surprised, with a district judge on the list, we don't see Lee Rosenthal's name. and though *I* might need a hearse if Ginsburg left in another mode of transportaion under Bush, perhaps the fact that she's from New York means something (if not that the WH has any expectation she might actually step down, that Preska is the designated RBG replacement)

as for the others, Owen probably has a 1% confirmation chance (which is still 10-100 times better than Brown's). I'd put Sykes at no better than 50-50. I'm gratified to see JCG say Clement is on the list again. though she's not my favorite, it validates my thinking on possible picks: go back to the original list. Luttig's at least as unconfirmable as Brown, and a white male to boot. Wilkinson's a white male, and over 60. Clement is the only female to be interviewed, and I don't think you can put that down to mere tokenism. And the "passed over 3 times" bit is hogwash, seeing as EVERYONE not yet picked has been passed over 3 times. I've always thought she was the most likely pick. I just hope she's the right one.

Sykes is FAR greater than 50/50. She got 70 votes for the circuit seat, with the endorsement (not just implied, but actual) of Kohl/Feingold, both on the Judiciary Committee. I'd put Sykes chances at 95%.

And the passed over bit isn't hogwash. We know Bush was actively looking for a female for the O'connor seat. If Clement was SCOTUS material, she would have gotten the nomination then. He couldn't find one and resorted to Miers, which suggests every woman he vetted then is unacceptable. It's not the fact that Clement was skipped that is important, it was the fact that she was skipped despite the President looking for that demographic.

Sykes is different though, as she wasn't considered for the 2005 vacancy with only 1 year of appellate experience.

we'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess. I am 100% convinced of the truth of both propositions.

A vacancy in the summer of 2008 is highly unlikely to be filled by this President after the Fortas situation.

If there is a vacancy past June 2008, I'd recess appoint a Hispanic like Estrada and force the Democrat President to withdraw him in 2009.

I've long said Estrada is the ideal candidate for a recess appointment. Glendon is also a favorite of mine in such a situation. though if a Repubican wins the WH, some consultation with the successor to find someone Bush likes and that said successor is willing to have reconsidered after he takes office may be in order.

Bush does nothing and lets his successor handle it.

It would have to be a Hispanic for this to work, and only in this circumstance. Recess appointing a John Roberts in 2005, under normal situations, simply gives ammunition for the Dems to use in his hearings.

Recess appointing a conservative Hispanic in August 2008 makes it a campaign issue that works in our favor. Recess appointing a conservative Hispanic in December 2008 (after a Hillary victory) forces her to explain why exactly they are kicking the first Hispanic justice off the bench.

The obvious problem with a June 2008 onward vacancy is that the Democrats will simply ignore it. They have precedent to do so.

Are you aware that Glendon is a Democrat? Not only is she anti-business and pro-worker rights, but she is also a champion of immigration amnesty and against the death penalty? The only two issues is she is good for are abortion and same-sex marriage.

In addition, she has two other major problems associated with her in my book. First, she is 69 years old. Second, more than any other Catholic nominee, she is intimately tied up with the Vatican, having been their official representative at more than one world conference. I do not have any problem with Catholics (I supported both the nominations of Roberts and Alito, and would have no problems with EBC, Sykes or Cantero as new nominees) in general, but Glendon is more than just an adherent to a religion. She has been a government official of that religion. I wouldn't want the French or Japanese ambassador nominated for the Supreme Court either, even if he was an American citizen.

This is what the Democrats have to say about recess appointments:

Leahy - Moreover, Roger Gregory’s recess appointment fit squarely in the tradition of presidents’ exercising such authority in order to expand civil rights and to bring diversity to the courts. Four of the five first African American appellate judges were recess-appointed to their first Article III position, including Judge William Hastie in 1949, Judge Thurgood Marshall in 1961, Judge Spottswood Robinson in 1961, and Judge Leon Higginbottom in 1964.

Clinton - Presidents have often exercised their recess powers to make historic appointments to bring diversity to the courts. Four of the five first African American appellate judges were recess-appointed to their first Article III position: Judge William Hastie, recess appointed to the Third Circuit by President Truman in 1949; Judge Thurgood Marshall, recess appointed to the Second Circuit by President Kennedy in 1961; Judge Spottswood Robinson recess appointed to the D.C. District Court by President Kennedy in 1961; and Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, recess appointed to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by President Johnson in 1964. Likewise, two of the three first women judges received recess appointments: Judge Burnita Shelton Matthews, recess appointed by President Truman to the D.C. District Court in 1949 and Judge Sarah Hughes, recess appointed by President Kennedy to the Northern District of Texas in 1961.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_52_36/ai_71563411
note: Clinton also cited the fact that Gregory was supported by homestate Senator Chuck Robb, who at that point had been defeated by George Allen. Gore had also been defeated by Bush.

It would have to be a real conservative here. I don't want to saddle a potential President Romney with someone like Ed Prado.

One incentive Bush could give the Dems to hurry up and confirm a new SCOTUS nominee this year would be to recess-appoint Robert Bork in August with Bork immediately submitting his resignation contingent upon the confirmation of his successor. That should scare the Democrats!

there's really no need to be difficult or hysterical BoBo. I said as a recess appointment. Thus, neither her age nor her party affiliation matter at all. She's sort of an anti-Kennedy, which I think would be a welcome addition to the court, especially to replace a Stevens or a Ginsburg (admittedly, it would be preferable to make such an addition after we got a 5th reliable conservative, but in this specific, hypothetical situation, we don't have that luxury. I never claimed she's an ideal candidate in a perfect world, but an intriguing one for the one we actually live in). She'd be suited in her short tenure to truly move the debate on those issues she'd be exceptionally outstanding on in a way no one else possibly could - in part because she's a Democrat and a liberal on other issues (which other issues, as a recess appointment, we don't have to live with for long, and which we don't lose any ground on anyway replacing a liberal). She'd be seen as much more of a "consensus" pick than the Democrats' dishonest definition, and shatter their meme that pro-life and pro-marriage positions are "out of the mainstream" and perhaps loosen the stranglehold of extremists on the Democrat party, which can only be a good thing. She'd also shake up the stale liberal-conservative classification for judges and perhaps even be a needed catalyst for easing the partisan tension on judicial nominations. There is nothing to lose and potentially much to gain by having Glendon serve as the interim replacement for a liberal for a few months.

And like Estrada, who is still my first pick for a recess appointment, she is not a judge, and so we wouldn't be giving up a seat on the COA for an interim Justice.

he'd also be a fun recess pick, and a nice reward for a distinguished individual (part of the attraction of Glendon as well, though he is certainly distinguished in a lot more ways that would make us comfortable). though there is a risk there of being incredibly polarizing and harming the Republican presidential bid in 08, and so is probably idle talk (admittedly, so is all talk of a recess appointment anyway, but its still fun :))

the "especially" in "especially to replace a Stevens or a Ginsburg" isn't quite appropriate since I obviously would NOT view it as a welcome addition to replace a Scalia or a Thomas!

Nominate JRB. If the dems find a way to shoot her down, come back with Cornyn. Both have great conservative credentials and the dems could not shoot down Cornyn (especially after shooting down JRB). Then, if they shoot down JRB, point out that the dems do NOT support women and minorities, only those women and minorities who support the liberal agenda.

what are the objectives we ought to consider in the recess appointment of a Supreme Court Justice by an outgoing President?

first, as I stated above, we don't want to have someone give up a lifetime seat on the Court of Appeals for a 6-month stint on the Supreme Court. second, in my view, it ought not be so much what concretely the Interim Justice can do in the short term, which is not much, but about the long term and moving the terms of the debate, and part of that is the symbolism and framing of the pick. Estrada as the first Hispanic would fit the bill from a demographic perspective, and Glendon as well for some unique reasons I've outlined above. a hardline conservative could of course be easily put through during a Senate recess, but it may do more harm than good by being seen as needlessly divisive, which is of course how the media would spin it, and apart from their term or half-term, the positive influence on the court itself would be negligible at best. the possible exception would be Bork, as it could turn the spotlight as much back on the Dems' outrageous obstruction of good judges as on Bush's "extreme" picks, but I rather think in most circumstances whereby a recess appointment might come about, that would be quite evident already, and so the so-called negatives probably would stand out brighter, unfortunately.

addendum to the end of the last post re: Bork -

what advantage Bork provides in highlighting the Dem obstruction, Estrada does as well, with less of the negatives, as well as the potential to stay on if a Republican wins the WH and renominates him.

Bush is not going to be allowed a recess appointment. The Democrats will reject all nominees pending when they recess, as they did in 2001, or refuse to recess at all. Either way, the Democrats have the ability to stop a recess appointment. Certaintly, they do have the will to stop such an appointment.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand better leadership.

I wonder why her name is not floated. She would be a great nominee in 2008 if Bush gets a pick. She would have had one term on the 2d Circuit and sailed through SJC and was confirmed 91-0.

Bobo: yes I am repudiating Bush. But I did so a long, long time ago.

Anyway, there isn't going to be a retirement, the next three Justices will all be nominated by President Clinton and confirmed by the Democratic Senate with help from the RINOs.

Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter are all likely to retire under Hillary. They will be replaced by the likes of Elena Kagan, Seth Waxman, Harold Koh, Merrick Garland, Sonia Sotomayor and Kathleen Sullivan. Hillary's first two nominees will be women. Probably Kagan for Stevens, followed by Sotomayor for Stevens. Souter could be replaced by Sullivan or Garland.

Those are the kind of lists you should start focusing on. The Court will not get more conservative than it currently is until Kennedy and Scalia retire after Hillary's two terms.

PS: In addition to Callahan, the two most likely nominees are Karen Williams and Maureen Mahoney, so I don't know who fed Jan that list but it seems like bogus to me.

Actually, I was correct in my post #36. Bush has had 4 New York nominees confirmed to the 2nd Circuit. They are: Barrington Parker (2001), Reena Raggi (2002), Richard Wesley (2003) and Debra Livingston (last month).

I'm still wary of a relative unknown as the nominee for the possible historic 5th conservative seat. However good Preska may seem, such a nomination is just too dangerous. BTW, who was the last sitting District Judge nominated to the Supreme Court? Even Carswell was on the 5th Circuit. I've gone back past Harding and still can't think of one. Wait, I've got it--wasn't Sanford (1923) a DJ?

Why not just go with Sykes or possibly Williams? They seem safe and relatively confirmable. Again, NO to JRB, Owen or any other filibustered nominee (except maybe Estrada-but he'd be better for a 4th nomination if lightning strikes twice).

Baseball analogy: in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th with a runner at third, you don't need a home run. A clean single to the outfield will do. The object is to win the game, not try to score style points and possibly strike out.

Again, she gets exactly 50 votes, unless they can pull off a FB. Nobody can fault her 2 years on COA!

And even if she loses, I say it's worth it to make them defeat her. (It's still feasible to get Sykes or Clement later...even though Clement *was* "actively" passed over the last time she was in serious contention, which is of course worse than never having been in contention in the first place.)

As for the "list," it's probably legit, whether we agree with all of the possibilities or not...and, the anticipatable elitism about folks who didn't pick the "right" law school four decades ago is unfortunate in light of so many other factors.

Callahan, etc., is a non-starter...they know that the courts are the only place Bush *has* been a *true* conservative (despite some unfair criticism to the contrary on that).

It looks like my comment has been deleted at Greenburg's blog "Legalities." Go figure.

for the WH to prepare for contingincies, esp. with regard to something as vital as possible SCOTUS vacancies.

With that being said, I'd like to see a lot more being done to get the nominees through. After all, this site exists to
CONFIRMTHEM!

You don't recess appoint someone whom you wouldn't want there on a permanent basis.

If you recess appoint Glendon, how is Romney supposed to explain getting rid of her (not nominating her for a fulltime position)?

You don't recess appoint someone you wouldn't want there permanently.

How is Romney supposed to explain withdrawing Glendon's nomination if she was already on the Supreme Court?

A few weeks back there was a discussion of what she meant when she says that there are people who are threatening an independent judiciary. Some thought she meant the left and others the right. This article makes it pretty clear who she means, and it is us:

http://newsok.com/article/3061504

My question is how much further to the left has she moved since she left the court? I now am not even sure she can be considered a moderate.

but on the other hand, why would you want to potentially taint someone you hope might get to stay there permanently? and as I've been arguing, a recess appointment affords the consideration of playing the game with different tactics that you might not necessarily have the luxury of considering for a "real" nomination. but as I've also said, all this comes up only under very unlikely circumstances, so it matters little except as a thought exercise.

as far as Romney having to explain, why would he? any more than a Dem would? I don't think there's any precedent for a recess appointment to SCOTUS at the end of a presidential term (the closest I can come up with is Andrew Jackson's nomination of John Catron on his last day in office, who was confirmed under Van Buren, but that wasn't a recess appt.), so there's no precedent for an incoming president to (re?)nominate them either.

Being a Republican appointment, Romney will have a hard time saying that Glendon is not a good candidate, because he's built his campaign around following Bush's footsteps in nominations. Hillary, on the other hand, can simply say that Glendon is out of the mainstream like Roberts and Alito. Obviously, she can do the same for Estrada as well. Let her; then she deals with the Hispanic fallout.

I do agree with the fact that putting someone on the court can only taint them, as their own opinions are used against them in the hearings. But I'm not worried.

Say the worst happens: Estrada is recess appointed, and his nomination is pulled by Hillary and replaced with MrMoonbat101. Yeah, Estrada is probably damaged goods for the rest of his life. So what? There are thousands of conservative lawyers in the country.

a Hispanic leftist and say she is not disturbing the diversity of the Court. Every Latino activist group in the country will be by her side while she does this.

Bush really should nominate more Hispanics to the COAs so a Republican successor can elevate one to SCOTUS. Whether he gets to name a 3rd justice or not, its unlikely to be a Hispanic as he would like (the imperative to put another woman on the court is greater, IMO, and the two sets are pretty much unique), and this way he still gets partial credit for the 1st hispanic justice. not a bad compromise.

and if the Dems are seen once again blocking all the hispanics, they'll be exposed, and get killed in 08 :)

Perhaps. Bush wasn't able to do that when he was forced to deal with Roger Gregory.

How liberal is Ed Prado, exactly? I don't know about his record, but I would doubt he could be worse than another Souter.

Bush was not able to do that because all of the liberal civil rights orgs. were not on his side.

But when you're in the last 6 months of your Presidency, you have little to lose, and a lot to gain.

From what I have read, he may be slightly to the right of Kennedy. If Bush has an opening in the last 6 months of his term, and he is replacing one of the liberals, Prado may be a nominee that the Dems could not delay until Hillary takes office. Yes, I operate under the theory that she will be the next President.

"Dear [ranking justice on 4th CCOA],

"I am writing you to inform you that Roger Gregory will not be reappointed. As a result, Roger Gregory does not have a lifetime appointment. As such, any plantiff or defend appearing in his Court has an automatic grounds for demanding a replacement judge per the Constitution.

"Thank you,

"GWB

"POTUS."

Two years later, Gregory's term expires.

Done!

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand conservatives leaders with principle and moxie.

really? thta's interesting, you think he's to the right of Kennedy? hmm, I suppose he might on perhaps the death penalty and maybe war on terror issues, maybe environmental issues. but I have the distinct impression he'd be to the left on abortion, affirmative action, and the 1st amendment (this is all speculation, especially on the group of issues I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on). I do get the feeling that he'll be an outstanding appelate judge once we have a conservative majority on SCOTUS (that is he won't try to create any waves like the 9th circus and will carefully follow SCOTUS' lead), but I'd never want him appointed to SCOTUS (unless its by a Democrat!) where I think he'd definitely be worse than Kennedy (perhaps better than Souter on a few issues though).

http://draftprado.org/about-uniter

"In a 1996 speech, Judge Prado also emphasized his concerns about the federal sentencing guidelines and his view that “mandatory minimum sentences are not being used uniformly… [and] do not serve a deterrent effect.”[1] While these remarks display Judge Prado’s concerns for the rights of the accused, he has also been a tough sentencer when the facts warrant it."

"From his ruling in McCorvey and his other rulings, Judge Prado appears to respect stare decisis and the precedents set forth by the Supreme Court in Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey."

"Judge Prado upheld the provisions of the [Brady Handgun Violence Protection] Act ruling that the Tenth Amendment does not “prevent the federal government from imposing minimal duties on state executive officers”"

"Prado's decision suggests that he may have a more cautious, deferential approach to limiting the power of the Congress or the President."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050718-122021-4254r_page2.htm

"Judge Prado also isn't viewed as acceptable by conservatives, but he's become the focus of a major Democratic campaign to be nominated.
"DraftPrado.org is an independent grassroots campaign," according to its Web site. Its creators, however are anything but independent.
Executive director Arkadi Gerney and chief technical adviser Tim Cullen were co-founders of Concerts for Kerry, a group that tried generating interest in last year's Kerry campaign among young voters.
Marc Laitin, the group's campaign manager, was press contact last year for a group called Run Against Bush, which described itself as "a movement to defeat Bush in 2004."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR200507...

"Democrats consider Prado, 58, to have an even temperament and a balanced approach to the law. As a district judge, he once overturned a death sentence and ruled that background checks for handgun purchases did not violate the Constitution. Democratic lawmakers who met with Bush to discuss the court reportedly told him that Prado could be confirmed."

Consensus is somewhere between Kennedy and Souter? I could live with the 61 year old Prado getting a recess appointment in December 08, I guess, if the Democrats has won the election.

I don't think the left wing base wants another Steven Breyer, who was possibly to the right of his replacement.

but someone who will follow the Supreme Court in his role as an inferior judge, even if it is more conservative than he. I don't think he'd be a good pick even under those circumstances. I'm not so sure an incoming Dem would necessarily pull him, when they could get half-credit for the first Hispanic AND a fake reputation as moderate and unifying by reappointing him. too big a risk even under that circumstance, though if he was like Kennedy, there would be a lot of risk for the Dem too.

Andrew, what did you post about Eid at JCG's blog & why do you think it was deleted?

Since Estrada already turned down a SCOTUS nomination when the Reps had the Senate majority, I doubt he'd say yes to one now that they've lost it.

And since Garza is believed to be too radioactive for various reasons, the only apparent conservative Hispanic nominees out there for Bush are Raoul Cantero and Ricardo Hinojosa. Yes, my sense is Hinojosa is conservative notwithstanding others' assertions he is more moderate. There is also Cecilia Altonaga, a judge on one of the federal District Courts in Florida, who is quite conservative. For some reason there is little talk of her as a potential female Hispanic nominee.

I recall District Judge Hinojosa being touted as a potential judicial star during the Reagan Presidency in the 1980's. Do you have any information as to why he has never been elevated to the 5th Circuit for over 20 years, by Reagan, Bush41, or Bush43?

Hinojosa has a brother who is a Democrat in the Texas legislature. He is considered to be a moderate and not a conservative.