6/2/2007

7 Responses to “White House Seeks Supreme Court Replacements, Just in Case — Women, Minorities Hardest Hit”

1. Not voluntarily, but…

   Stevens is 87
   Ginzburg is 74
   Kennedy and Scalia are 71
   Breyer is 69
   Souter is 68
   Thomas is 59
   Alito is 57
   Roberts is 52

   The probability that one of them will die in the next year (based strictly on age, per CDC life tables), is about 23%. That of course does not allow for them being in better health than the average Americans of the same ages. OTOH, there is more than a year left in Bush’s tenure and disabling illness is also possible.

   Bush must be prepared for the next nomination; it could come at any time.

   Rich Rostrom (4e26d1) — 6/3/2007 @ 12:44 am

   
   

2. I’m guessing illness of a Judge or Spouse that’s gotten around on the grapevine is not really that impossible.

   jpm100 (a99bf7) — 6/3/2007 @ 4:44 am

   
   

3. Conservatives should brace for the worst, and start badmouthing the unacceptable nominees. Remember, this is the president who tried to put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court, and refused, for more than three weeks, to withdraw the nomination. I don’t trust him not to nominate someone like Maureen Mahoney or Consuelo Callahan. I don’t think he’s learned his lesson on this issue, any more than he has on certain other hugely important issues where he’s been slapping his base in the face.

   The idea that this president would nominate Janice Rogers Brown is like the idea that he’d veto a spending bill or enforce our immigration laws–a beautiful fantasy, but a fantasy all the same.

   Alan (7033bb) — 6/3/2007 @ 7:48 am

   
   

4. america is ready for a pagan supreme court justice, and i’m available!

   assistant devil's advocate (c4c127) — 6/3/2007 @ 10:09 am

   
   

5. “america is ready for a pagan supreme court justice, and i’m available!”

   Hate to burst your bubble, ada, but just what do you think the FDR appointees were?

   nk (c66fe9) — 6/3/2007 @ 11:12 am

   
   

6. Alan, I agree that the time to badmouth any questionable nominees is now, before they are nominated, rather than after President Bush has stuck his neck out. I’ve never forgiven David Frum for proudly predicting the Miers nomination months before it occurred, without dropping so much as a hint of what a horrible idea he thought that was. Had he led a much more toned down version of his anti-Miers campaign sooner rather than later, he could have prevented the whole Miers debacle before it happened, thereby (1) averting any risk of Miers actually being confirmed (assuming, as I believe nearly all of us can, that Miers would have either been a crappy Justice, or at least one not as good as Alito), (2) sparing the Republican Party the acrimony of a huge intraparty squabble we all could have done without, (3) getting Justice Alito confirmed months earlier than he was, and (4) getting rid of Sandra Day O’Connor that much earlier, as well.

   I also agree that a Brown nomination is a bit of a long shot, but mostly because she’d be so hard to confirm, not because Bush wouldn’t want her on the court. After all, it’s not as though Bush hasn’t supported her in the past, in the face of extremely fierce opposition. And let’s not forget why such opposition was so fierce. It wasn’t because anyone thought the DC Circuit was all that big of a deal in and of itself, but because it was widely perceived as the first step toward a Supreme Court nomination. Expecting President Bush to continue a nominee he has supported in the past is hardly the same as expecting him to pull an ideological u-turn and veto drunken sailor spending or non-amnesty amnesty, two horrendous causes he has championed from day one.

   Xrlq (0869f5) — 6/3/2007 @ 11:26 am

   
   

7. I suspect George and Laura Bush would prefer a female nominee but, if the immigration bill fails, I think he’ll nominate an Hispanic. I predict Judge Garza of the Fifth Circuit. It would be a win-win for Bush and conservatives if that happens.

   DRJ (2d5e62) — 6/3/2007 @ 1:56 pm