Rumors swirl about Justice Stevens
posted at 12:06 am on November 5, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
If you thought the stakes couldn’t get higher, think again.
I actually heard this at DU a week ago and dismissed it as crap they were pitching to GOTV. Now I’m thinking it’s crap our side is pitching to GOTV.
But let’s say it isn’t. Who’s the nominee? It has to be a woman this time, which means either Edith Jones or Janice Rogers Brown. Probably JRB if the Democrats take the Senate, and particularly if Michael Steele does well with black voters in Maryland on Tuesday.
As for Stevens, let’s not have anything in the comments here that we might see at dKos if Scalia were ill, ‘kay?
He’s an 86-year-old man who wears bowties, people. Bowties.
Although not always.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Just for the fun of it, I would love President Bush to drop Bork back on them. Just to see their faces.
Texan on November 5, 2006 at 12:13 AM
He deserves our deepest respect and gratitude for his service and our prayers for his health regardless of whether we agreed with his politics. Beyond that, I guess we’ll only be able to guess at how things will evolve post 11-7. Either way, it’s destined to be a nasty fight.
jasnell on November 5, 2006 at 12:15 AM
This could be more distressing than we know. Cal Thomas stated the following in a recent article:
Equally insightful is his comment that Republicans have controlled all three branches of government, but conservatives have not. Can we think of a more important time for conservatives to rally the base than now?
thedecider on November 5, 2006 at 12:17 AM
That’s actually not a bad strategy. He could nominate the person who most offends the Dems, and then pull back to a similarly conservative but less volatile pick. But by all means, his legit pick should be a person who the Dems would have to cringe while criticizing. JRB is a good pick for that.
Alternatively, and what’s more likely, is that GWB will pick a woman who has less of a history to criticize. Someone like Diane Sykes from the 7th, etc.
alflauren on November 5, 2006 at 12:17 AM
Why does it have to be a woman? I don’t get that.
JRB was delayed for 2 years to get to her current position. What are the chance the democrats would let her take the supreme court? slim and none?
Democrats will moan about the balance being upset, media will follow, Bush will cave, as always.
lorien1973 on November 5, 2006 at 12:19 AM
He should name-drop Bork, say he’s just kidding, then nominate Edward Cashman, but say, “No, you liberals would like him too much,” and nominate Edith Jones and everyone will let out a huge sigh of relief.
Gotta be strategic.
Christoph on November 5, 2006 at 12:19 AM
Allahpundit for SCOTUS!
Alex K on November 5, 2006 at 12:22 AM
Well, even if the guy was perfectly healthy, he’s still 86. He’s earned the right to rest and relax and enjoy his retirement.
ReubenJCogburn on November 5, 2006 at 12:24 AM
Replace him with Tucker Carlson?
infidel4life on November 5, 2006 at 12:30 AM
Janice Rogers Brown, the next Supreme Court Justice. If you need a reason to vote Republican, that should be enough.
billy on November 5, 2006 at 12:33 AM
not to make it a “me” thing, but i think its about my turn for consideration. i’m always judgemental.
jummy on November 5, 2006 at 12:35 AM
DING!
jummy on November 5, 2006 at 12:36 AM
To Jasnell:
Thank you. Thank you for being so classy.
Seriously.
I’ll think about the next SCOTUS slot when it’s open.
For now … back to Jasnell.
Classy. Just … classy.
I want to see more of that. From everyone.
Professor Blather on November 5, 2006 at 12:45 AM
Nah, Ken Starr would be MUCH more fun. ;-)
bamapachyderm on November 5, 2006 at 12:55 AM
1. Janice Rogers Brown (I’d want to see the left claim the GOP is racist for nominating the first black woman to the USSC)
2. Kenneth Star (I love your idea bama! The left would melt into a steaming puddle of hate and we’d laugh ourselves into apolexy)
3.
Defector01 on November 5, 2006 at 1:04 AM
I like Texan’s idea of Bork being renominated.
Otherwise, I nominate Roy S. Moore former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama who fought valiantly and lost the 10 commandment debate.
FLLaw33870 on November 5, 2006 at 1:11 AM
It’s a little harder to stonewall a black woman appointee to the Supreme Court when the entire country is paying attention. They know that regular people don’t pay much attention to the lower courts, so they get a little bold on those.
DaveS on November 5, 2006 at 1:18 AM
I don’t know much about Stevens, but I suspect I wouldn’t like him if I did.
Could I be SCOTUS? The Constitution is only like five pages; I’m sure I could read it real quick right before I’m appointed so I’m prepared for the job.
frankj on November 5, 2006 at 1:35 AM
While the 2006 elections are important its the 2008 that will be critical.
The Demo can block a Bush appointee so it makes it possible that the next president will make the choice. (and will no matter what)
So in a sense may be good if the democrats win in that will give us republicans two years to turn the tide and get another republican president in office.
William Amos on November 5, 2006 at 1:44 AM
No one named Frank has ever been SCOTUS.
infidel4life on November 5, 2006 at 1:58 AM
However, you could write a new national anthem.
infidel4life on November 5, 2006 at 2:00 AM
Wrong!
Allahpundit on November 5, 2006 at 2:00 AM
infidel
How about a Loren?
and unlike Frank, I’ve been to law school…………….for two months
Defector01 on November 5, 2006 at 2:00 AM
Damn my lousy high school government teacher!!!
(I’m kidding Mrs. Martinson I weally do wuv you)
infidel4life on November 5, 2006 at 2:04 AM
I think Felix Frankfurter deserves partial credit on this. I mean, come on, he sounds like the Rocky Horror Justice.
ReubenJCogburn on November 5, 2006 at 2:06 AM
Sorry, you’re over-qualified.
;-)
infidel4life on November 5, 2006 at 2:16 AM
Nominate JRB, and if the Dems filibuster, then recess appoint her.
I wonder if the Dems would be able to filibuster the nomination. Can you imagine the commercials that would be run by whatever 527’s are now called comparing the current filibuster to the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act? If the GOP is making actual inroads in the AA vote, then the Dems will fold.
Poor Alan Colmes would be spending months defending the Dems as not being racists.
rw on November 5, 2006 at 3:02 AM
Bush should nominate Ken Starr, then do a “Harriet Myers” and say “Just Kidding…
Janice Rogers Brown.”
(Although both are fine jurists and would do well on SCOTUS).
Make no mistake, though, for the Liberal Left and for us, it’s all about the Judges!
(Beat ya, Defector; I went to law school for 4 months!:-))
Jen the Neocon on November 5, 2006 at 4:19 AM
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Donald Rumsfeld has a nice ring to it.
Pablo on November 5, 2006 at 4:40 AM
brown is so stridently pro-property rights she’d make rothbard cringe. she got robbed last time around. if she’s not nominated this time i’ll, uh, move to france or something.
on an unrelated note, what the hell do i do with these dvr-ms files i have? i’m using dvrmstoolbox to convert them, but it takes a dump for any recording over an hour long and there’s no program on earth that can cut them.
jummy on November 5, 2006 at 4:57 AM
It actually crossed my mind during the Harriet Myers episode that Bush did this in reverse. Most people were expecting a rightist extremist to counter the preposterous notions of Ginsburg, Stevens, et al.
Instead, after Myers, we got a moderate to replace a moderate-right leaning Chief Justice. He’s smart and reasonable, but he’s not so powerful a personality that he can overwhelm the leftist silliness already in place with more tenure (not that anyone necessarily could). But while to offset leftist nuttiness with centrist reason is probably better in the long run, it would be quicker if we had a little bit of rightist “affirmative action” on the SCOTUS, followed by the reason option once balance was re-established.
urbancenturion on November 5, 2006 at 5:34 AM
The heck with SCOTUS. Let’s put the Mafia in charge.
Coronagold on November 5, 2006 at 7:56 AM
Well, no, it doesn’t HAVE to be a woman, but, that being said, my top three picks would be:
1) Janice
2) Rodgers
3) Brown
Tony737 on November 5, 2006 at 8:28 AM
I hope Justice Stevens enjoys the retirement that he deserves from a lifetime of service to his country.
Mortis on November 5, 2006 at 9:06 AM
F.Y.I. According to Washington Whispers this week, JRB tops Bush’s SCOTUS short list.
Greg Tinti on November 5, 2006 at 9:15 AM
Harriet Miers is still out there. We’ll get Jones, Brown, or Owens when Bush secures the border and Hell gets chilly.
Valiant on November 5, 2006 at 9:28 AM
Get rid of Stevens and get someone willing to enforce our laws on capital punishment.
EF on November 5, 2006 at 9:28 AM
Oh, and Stevens would not retire unless he is on death’s door. He knows the stakes.
EF on November 5, 2006 at 9:30 AM
I’m of the opinion that there should be a mandatory retirement age for federal officials. How about, oh, 80 years old. Once you reach 80 you’re out of the SCOTUS, Congress or Oval Office.
Bellicose Muse on November 5, 2006 at 9:33 AM
…let’s hope that Justice Stevens is not gravely ill, despite his age, and that, should he retire that he enjoys a long and peaceful retirement, free from the intrusion so common today.
That said, Justice Brown would piss off all the right people.
…then, again, there’s Frank.
…and I look good in black…although flowing judicial robes would take on the look of a moo-moo with my generously proportioned but still manly frame. I’m not a lawyer, but would probably do as well as Souter or Ginsburg….
…and I’m prettier than Ginsberg. Sight unseen, I’m sure that Frank is pretty than Ginsburg….
…and I’d make Scalia look like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm…that’s it…cross out “Pedro” on all those t-shirts, folk, and “Vote for
PedroPuritan!”, God’s gift to jurisprudence and the working-man’s friend!…I could have an entourage as big as any hip-hop star…applications being taken.
Puritan1648 on November 5, 2006 at 9:35 AM
Honestly, given the dramatic changes that are coming to society driven by technology and science, I would prefer a justice to have a strong science/technology/engineering background.
purpleslog on November 5, 2006 at 10:12 AM
Can President Bush nominate himself?
JamesonLewis3rd on November 5, 2006 at 10:49 AM
heh – I wear bowties every day – but don’t hold that against me…
Cal Thomas is absolutely right, the makeup of the judiciary, including the SC, should be a paramount concern for Tuesday…
(I really like JRB)
Coastian on November 5, 2006 at 10:50 AM
JRB would be a great choice. Not only that, but it would be a wonderful sight to watch Senator K attempt a repeat of his bloviating, stentorian objections to Roberts and Alito in the Judiciary hearings:
“We in the civil rights community…”
eeyore on November 5, 2006 at 11:01 AM
How about a recess appointment of Bork. Take the gloves off.
Sorry, I forgot – Republicans don’t do that. Must be moderate at all costs.
Coyote D. on November 5, 2006 at 11:23 AM
I don’t think there are any requirements a candidate must fill in order to be nominated and confirmed. You don’t have to pass the bar, have a law degree, or have any legal experience at all. He could name a White House janitor if he wanted.
The Apologist on November 5, 2006 at 11:43 AM
I agree with “jasnell,” regardless of perceived political ideology, or sometimes questionable Supreme Court opinions, Justice Stevens is still a member of the Supreme Court of the United States and deserves respect. I wish him well and hope he can find joy in his remaining time here on Earth.
Troy Rasmussen on November 5, 2006 at 12:46 PM
IfWhen Steele wins in Maryland, the Prez should really nominate JRB and brighten the spotlight on the racism of the left.SouthernGent on November 5, 2006 at 1:05 PM
I’ve seen at least one post suggesting 2008 more important than 06. Nice sentiment, but it nevertheless is a wrong proposition. You need only look at history to realize that nothing in politics is a given. Who says we’ll get the house and senate back if we lose 06. We thought that in 54 too, and what happened? We were relegated to the political Siberia for 40 years! The dems thought the same after 94. When you assume power, that’s exactly what you do, become powerful. You have the ability to shape not just policy, but voting districts, the courts….don’t forget 2000(can you imagine a leftist court ruling that Florida’s courts could throw out election law and have a dem free-for-all recount), and who votes(illegals getting that right etc…). Please, it’s never a good thing to lose. Can you learn from a loss? Sure. Could it possibly strengthen you as a result? That’s possible as well. But this is politics, not sports. In sports the game pretty much stays the same, the rules don’t change. Not so in politics. As we learned in 94, who controls congress matters mightily. If you hold congress then what happens in 08 presidential politics can be either supported or neutralized, depending on the result. Could you imagine the nations collective ex-wife as president with her party in charge of congress? God what a catastrophe in waiting that is………
ritethinker on November 5, 2006 at 1:21 PM
Woohoo! AP found precedent for me being SCOTUS!
That would be such a sweet job. I’m sure I could find something in the Constitution which means I get to eat at Taco Bell for free.
frankj on November 5, 2006 at 2:57 PM
The thing is, if you have a Supreme Court dominated by liberals, you might as well not have one. Just chuck the rule of law out the window, because nothing–no matter how clearly written in the law, or how expressly forbidden–means anything if some liberal pinhead decides that it should be a “right”. When gay terrorist marriage or pet voting rights magically appear in the Constitution, you’ll have some lefty navel-gazer to thank for it.
ReubenJCogburn on November 5, 2006 at 3:14 PM
…and sooner rather than later.
Hey, GWB recess-appointed John Bolton. Maybe he needds to do it again…
hmmmmmm?
urbancenturion on November 5, 2006 at 3:24 PM
Bork is too old and we’ve waited to long to clone Big Tony (Scalia). Janice Rogers Brown’s got my vote !
Maxx on November 5, 2006 at 4:31 PM
Justice Stevens is a wonderful man. Not so wonderful a Justice. He was awarded a Bronze Star in WW2 you know…
Dawnsblood on November 5, 2006 at 5:27 PM
Oh my gosh, that Cubs picture of him is precious.
marykatharine on November 5, 2006 at 5:34 PM
Janice Rogers Brown
I do not think GWB will nominate her but I can dream.
He spends to much time appeasing everyone as of late including the terrorists.
ScottyDog on November 5, 2006 at 6:40 PM
This old goat is precisely the reason we don’t need socialized medicine. He is a living example of what the finest pay-as-you-go private health care can buy you.
If its good enough for them, why should we peasants accept anything less….
seejanemom on November 5, 2006 at 8:39 PM
“Blather” is about right. Let’s do some work on that “classy!” nonsense:
Absolutely, but certainly not …
… which has been an almost unending joke of liberal judicial activism, bordering on farce. And the missing point is that …
or not should not have anything to do with it (Nel, Troy, Professor). SCOTUS is not (supposed to be) a political entity. Remember?
Jaibones on November 5, 2006 at 8:50 PM
(sigh…) and Pablo nails it, yet again…
Jaibones on November 5, 2006 at 8:52 PM
GW should nominate an outrageously conservative, lightning-rod justice if there’s a vacancy. If THAT one doesn’t fly, then nominate the conservative one you wanted in the first place.
Mojave Mark on November 5, 2006 at 9:06 PM
frankj, just in case you make it to SCOTUS here’s a little tip for you … Commerce Clause Dude … Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution … that’s the ticket. They regulate everything from medical marijuana to endangered species under it. I’m sure you can find some Tacos there. Good Luck !
ahem… I expect some tacos
Maxx on November 5, 2006 at 9:12 PM
Bullshit. SCOTUS is, by design, just as political as any other branch of government; it’s just meant to be politically independent of the other branches.
jasnell on November 5, 2006 at 9:27 PM
Jaibones ….. Yeah, Pablo does have a pretty high batting average, doesn’t he?
Hi 5 to my Air Force brother!
Tony737 on November 5, 2006 at 10:26 PM
T7,
I come here to read AP and Pablo. Great stuff.
Jaibones on November 5, 2006 at 11:21 PM
SCOTUS is not suppose to be a political entity. Honorable service requires members of the court to be above politics and remain bound to the Constitution. They are not the writers of law, but only the interpreters. Justice Stevens has a long history of violating this principle, he is a paragon of judicial activism.
Maxx on November 5, 2006 at 11:22 PM
Nel, explain.
Jaibones on November 5, 2006 at 11:22 PM
Nel, explain.
There’s not much to explain. SCOTUS is a fundamental part of the political system. It’s designed to be independent of either the Executive or Legislative branches and has been assigned a distinctly unique role relative to either of the other branches but that doesn’t make it apolitical.
jasnell on November 6, 2006 at 12:22 AM
Rumsfeld doesn’t have the jurist background necessary to be a SC justice and would politely decline; the man knows his strengths.
If you wanted to drive the Moonbat Left crazy, appoint John Ashcroft or Ken Starr.
Bork is also about as long in the tooth as Stephens and his weird beird has always driven me crazy! Like Stephens’es bowties.
Maxx nailed it!
I don’t wish the old fart ill personally and I hope he has a long life followed by a peaceful, painless death in private life, but he and those other 4 Liberal judicial tyrants (Ginsburg, Souder, Breyer and Kennedy) sure have shoved through some mighty bad law like Kelo and Hamdan.
I sure miss Justice Renquist and I sure love Alito & Roberts as well as Scalia and Thomas.
Jen the Neocon on November 6, 2006 at 12:27 AM
No.. SCOTUS is not meant to be a legislative entity. It’s still political.
I certainly agree that there have been egregious abuses on the part of the entire court over the past few decades.
jasnell on November 6, 2006 at 12:44 AM
Janice Rogers-Brown is as qualified as anyone could hope to be for the position. Unlike the law-crafting justices from the left, she has always judged based on prevailing law, even when she didn’t agree with the law in place.
That said, I’d like to see Roy Moore be the next nominee. He was wrongly shafted out of his position in Alabama. You want a firebrand, a hard-right take-no-prisoners jurist? He’s your man.
I’d have no troubles with Ken Starr, either. All three exhibit integrity that most liberals can’t possibly understand.
Freelancer on November 6, 2006 at 1:02 AM
As for Stevens, let’s not have anything in the comments here that we might see at dKos if Scalia were ill, ‘kay?
I guess that means you’re not allowing Ann Coulter to comment here . . .
Patterico on November 6, 2006 at 1:10 AM
Ann Coulter said what she said, and made clear that it was a joke at the time. And at that time it was merely laughable, but under the current circumstances, probably not appropriate. I know the left will be anxious to sneer at Annie, and accuse her of being a cruel and heartless rightwinger, but her statement was long before Stevens was known to be sick. So compare what she SAID to what a member of the “Left” actually DID, shortly after a beloved and good natured gentleman had actually died.
Maxx on November 6, 2006 at 2:04 AM
I loves me some Janice Rogers Brown.
She’s pretty close to being a libertarian poster child. She quotes Ayn Rand and uses powerful words against collectivism. They’d filibuster the living hell out of her. Doesn’t matter that she’s a black woman… they’re afraid of her. Heck, I’ll bet most Republican senators are afraid of her. She equates government programs to addictive drugs. She says senior citizens are “blithely cannibalizing their grandchildren.”
Mark Jaquith on November 6, 2006 at 7:49 AM
Janice Rogers Brown. With Steele being elected, the tide is turning, her confirmation would be a battle but Brown would get it. The left cannot afford to alienate the black vote, they have to keep them tethered to their lies. Fighting a strong, intelligent, independent black women would split the Democratic party. They (Dems) need slaves, not masters.
right2bright on November 6, 2006 at 8:56 AM
I fervently agree; I absolutely do not understand the integrity of Ken Starr.
honora on November 6, 2006 at 9:20 AM
Please give my your definition of “judicial activism”. Thanks.
honora on November 6, 2006 at 9:21 AM
So you’re saying that blacks who vote Democratic are acting like slaves? Gee, wonder why blacks stay away from you Repubs in droves…..
honora on November 6, 2006 at 9:23 AM
Judicial Activism: ruling that deviates from or is in opposition to the wording of the Constitution.
Maxx on November 6, 2006 at 9:50 AM
Yikes!! That’s rather novel. It’s also completely subjective; which is kind of the point I guess, allows the wide use of the term as a bludgeon against anyone who disagrees with your particular take on the Constitution.
I prefer the attached POV, that activism is overturning state/federal legislation and judicial precedent.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=912509
honora on November 6, 2006 at 10:20 AM
Not only is he a liberal, and wear bowties, but he cheers for the Cubs, possibly the most pathetic franchise in all of sports.
That gains him some sympathy points right there, and removes him from some levels of criticism for that sacrifice.
webproze on November 6, 2006 at 10:53 AM
Bowties?
What, is he gay, too?
ahem on November 6, 2006 at 11:22 AM
I personally cannot stand the term “judicial activism”. It’s entirely too subjective. Regardless of what it’s called, however, the effect is the same: The Court defining law by selectively eliminating alternatives that run counter to the courts collective world view… and it really doesn’t matter whether that world view is conservative or liberal.
jasnell on November 6, 2006 at 12:09 PM
I’m pretty certain Bush or a Bush aide called every female Federal judge on the long list and asked if they wanted to be nominated. The smart thing to say is, “Uh, no thanks,” just from the immediate scrutiny you get. And I think most said “No way”, including my favorite at the time, Edith Jones.
JRB has had some time & experience now on the court, so a nomination of her isn’t out of the question.
Just remember that Ginsburg is also aged, and she did have a bout with cancer, so she may retire early as well. If Stevens retires and the Senate is Democratically controlled, then you can expect a minority or a female appointment (just remember that Clarence Thomas didn’t exactly have an easy time of it). But if it’s a Republican Senate, he may go with a male (Alberto Gonzalez, perhaps?) if they think Ginsberg is close to retirement.
Nethicus on November 6, 2006 at 1:03 PM
There is a lot of disagreement about what this term means, even lexicographers don’t agree. Encarta has their definition, Wiktionary has another, and Dictionary.com has yet another.
But you ask me for My definition and I gave it to you. And I believe the definition I gave is fairly consistent with the way most conservatives use it. I see that you apply a different definition. We may have discovered yet another reason why the left and the right have a failure to communicate.
If I would have known the term was so nebulous I would not have used it. Maybe I should have simply said; I think Stevens is a bad judge because he doesn’t follow the Constitution … and left it at that.
Maxx on November 6, 2006 at 2:37 PM
Ahem. I wear bow ties quite frequently. I am not an old fogie (being only 40). I am not gay; I am not a leftist. I vote regularly, and don’t believe I’ve ever voted for a democrat in my entire life. My wife is extremely pretty. I am a gun owner and a volunteer EMT at the local fire department.
So, let’s not be down on folks who wear bow ties; if that were the only problem with Justice Stevens, I’m sure we’d all be delighted to see him remain on the bench for decades to come.
morganfrost on November 6, 2006 at 3:23 PM
Good riddance to another bad liberal judge. Anyone that believes John Paul Stevens was a good SCOTUS judge must first read his liberal voting record. Like Ruth bater Ginsberg, he never fell asleep during a hearing, however his liberal voting record on key cases sucks, especially Kelo v. City of New London, as regards imminent domain. Matter of fact, all five judges that usurped the Constitution in that case should have been impeached, ASAP. If ever there should be a Constitutional Amendment, Congress should either set age and/or term limits for all Appellate and Supreme court judges.
BTW, the term “judge” appears in the Constitution, but “Justices” is nowhere to be found. SCOTUS judges enthroned themselves with that term.
byteshredder on November 6, 2006 at 6:02 PM
Comment pages: