Novak: Replacing O'Connor could get ugly (predicts Owen)

[Dudley_DUright]

With Senate confirmation of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice virtually assured, the struggle for the Supreme Court returns to replacing retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The belief in legal and political circles is that President Bush will name a conservative woman, and the front-runner is federal Appellate Judge Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit, Austin, Texas).

According to White House sources, Bush met secretly with Owen last week. While not decisive evidence, this was no mere get-acquainted session beginning a long exploration. He knows and admires his fellow Texas Republican. The countervailing political pressure on Bush is to name a Hispanic American, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is a Texas Republican the president knows and likes even better than he does Owen. But signals last week he might name Gonzales probably should not be taken seriously.

Bush's original nomination of Roberts to replace O'Connor would have moved the court to the right, but it would not have been decisive because of uncertainty over Chief Justice William Rehnquist's future. Roberts for Rehnquist is a conservative replacing a conservative. That leaves open whether a conservative affecting the court's orientation for a generation shall replace O'Connor, a pro-choice social liberal.

Appellate Judge Edith Clement (5th Circuit, New Orleans) was the runner-up to Roberts in the first selection process, but the word in legal circles is that she did not do well in her interview with Bush and now is out of the picture. Appellate Judge Edith Jones (5th Circuit, Houston) has been mentioned for the high court for a decade and at 56 is near the outer age limit. New names are Appellate Judge Karen Williams (4th Circuit, Orangeburg, S.C.), one of the most conservative federal judges, and Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan.

more...

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak12.html

It looks like Traitor Novak, mouthpiece for the wingnuts, is lobbying for Priscilla.

[adigal]

1. This is why the Dems in the Gang 0f 14 screwed America

If they didn't filibuster Priscilla Owen before, it makes it seem like "extraordinary" circumstances to filibuster her now. I don't believe this, but they sure as hell made it harder for the Dems to justify fighting her.

[Pirate Smile]

3. She is supposed to follow precedent now but won't have to on the

Supreme Court.

IMO She will be filibustered if he appoints her. I think the Dems would fight her BIG TIME (as Dick says).

[Wabbajack]

2. Novack is wrong

* will choose another "stellar" nomminee and our causus will bend over again.

[AndyTiedye]

6. OF COURSE They'll Bend Over. That's Why It's Called the NUCLEAR OPTION!

You either bend over now or bend over later and kiss your ass goodbye.

The :nuke: option would formalize the transition to a permanent one-party government.

[Village Idiot]

4. Holy shite!!!

Is there NOT some judicial nominee SOMEWHERE that HASN'T been sucking Republican C_ck for the past decade???

[depakid]

5. Why shouldn't Bush pick the most extreme person he can find?

The Dems won't fight anything, so I see no reason why the far right shouldn't press the envelope.

Harry Reid will make some more noise, people here will cheer- and then he'll sell us all out just as he has every single time before.

[Dudley_DUright]

7. Bush wants them as extreme as possible and as young as possible

Owen, like Rogers, is 50 years old which means they will be polluting the court for 30 years or more.