Saturday’s SCOTUS Summary
It’s a bit out-of-date now, but the last two Jan Crawford Greengurg Q&A posts are up at Confirm Them: HERE and HERE.
A couple of particularly interesting bits, from both interviews:
[In your book], you assert that Justice Alito is the Conservative’s equivalent of Justice Ginsburg. Can you please elaborate on that point?
Answer: Sure. Justice Alito—like Justice Ginsburg—was a known quantity. He’d been an advocate for political change on the Right, just as she was on the Left. He was an experienced judge with well-known views, just as she was before her nomination. He was clearly conservative, just as she was clearly liberal. He would be a solid vote for the president who nominated him, just as Ginsburg would for the president who nominated her. He would change the direction of the court, because he was more conservative than the justice he replaced. She would change the direction of the court, because she was more liberal than the justice she replaced. He was collegial and well-respected by his peers on the other side of the ideological aisle, just as Ginsburg was by her peers. George W. Bush didn’t nominate a cipher like his dad with David Souter. He didn’t nominate an unmoored “80 percenter” like President Reagan with Anthony Kennedy. Alito had a track record. And he proved that a Republican president could nominate a justice with clearly held, conservative views and get him confirmed—just as Bill Clinton had in nominating liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Now of course, there’s one slight hole in my theory, so those of you who’ve figured it out, stop yelling at me. Yes, I know, Justice Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3. Justice Alito was confirmed 58-42. And I’ll let you guys speculate on why that vote count is the big difference between the nominations/confirmations of Ginsburg and Alito—and what it means for Bush if he gets another one.
…
That said, Gonzales recognized conservatives would revolt over his nomination, as did Karl Rove and Andy Card. But it’s hard to believe Rove and Card didn’t also see the same opposition to Harriet Miers. The Miers nomination was so closely held with just a small handful of advisers that Bush got no serious pushback–except from one key person, Alberto Gonzales. That’s the most fascinating thing about the Gonzales story. Gonzales alone—unlike Rove and Card and Miers, herself–recognized that conservatives also would reject Miers. Gonzales alone stuck his neck out and urged President Bush not to nominate her. Bush, of course, didn’t listen—he’d already made up his mind. Rove and Card had signed off, Miers was game, and Gonzales was unable to persuade Bush otherwise. I’d guess Gonzales’s prospects for the Supreme Court now are pretty dim. If Bush gets to replace Stevens or Ginsburg, I suspect conservative opposition still would be there (though perhaps not as strong, since Gonzales undoubtedly is more conservative than either two). But he’d get killed by the Left, which could turn the entire process into a hearing on the President’s anti-terror policies. If the Bush White House is going to wage that kind of battle over its next nominee, it would fight over Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen–not Alberto Gonzales.
Tons of fascinating stuff there, particularly as it relates to what Bush might do should he get another shot at the SCOTUS. Greenburg doesn’t think he’ll get another chance, which is too bad. (I think. Fr. Fox is right. We still don’t really know what will happen with Alito and Roberts.)
(While on the SCOTUS topic, HERE is an interesting piece on Thomas; HERE is something called The US Supreme Court Justices Database, COURTESY of SCOTUSBlog; Confirm Them DESCRIBES “a pretty good week;” and THIS needs no commentary.)
