I can't believe a straight up moron like Cornyn is on any list whatsoever. Texas gives you Bush, DeLay and Cronyn. Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do....
This is my initial handicap of potential nominations...I'm interested in other comments. From most likely (in my opinion)... Luttig (4th Cir.) Roberts (DC Cir.) Clement (5th Cir.) Wilkinson (5th Cir.) Jones (5th Cir.) Gonzales (Atty. Gen.) Alito (3d Cir.) McConnell (10th Cir.) Garza (5th Cir.) Thompson (private practice) My reasoning essentially is that Bush will likely go hardcore winger with this nomination, with the idea in the back of his head of appointing Gonzales to be Chief when Rehnquist steps down (which if not this summer, will come during Bush's Presidency).
I am the opposite. I think he goes soft with Garza, Gonzales (you're a racist if you oppose) of Jones (not soft, but you are a sexist if you oppose) and saves the real SOB for the next nomination.
Interesting thing the American legal system. I’d dare say that 99% of Europeans don’t know who the heads of their highest courts are, and the process of appointment is completely apolitical.
I don't know that I'd say that Garza is soft...but you may be correct. CNN actually has Kozinski on their list - Bush wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot pole. But, to that effect, I've told people for some time that I think the Court lacks a true star - in the Brandeis/Holmes/Cardozo/Brennen mold - and we need a big-timer...Kozinski, Posner, etc. Even if I don't particularly agree with these guys - an actual legal 'thinker' (as opposed to a party-line neo-con) would be good to see.
Ditto that. Sadly, Bush has learned to play "affirmative action/political correctness" to his advantage extreeeemly well. It won him the election in 04. But, anyways, watching coverage of this just highlighted the Dems problems, and more importantly, that they haven't learned ANYTHING from the last 5 years. Speeches: Bush: Oconnor was great, I will nominate, positive positive, etc. Kennedy: If Bush does this, we are going to block it, blahblah negative negative. Who writes this stuff for the Dems? My GOD. It's not so hard people. Be positive. Kennedy redux: We look forward to working with Bush, etc., we will expedite the process on the reasonable and fair candidate the Prez puts forward, blahblah. Man, it's not that hard. I can only guess that the Dems are so frustrated and angry at being beaten at almost every turn, that they have insulated themselves and really believe that "fighting" against this and that and being outspoken and that drivel is going to help them. If you need clarification: see Dean. Hillary is the only smart politician of the bunch, weell, one of a few.
Democrats knew exactly what was at stake during the last election. They lost. Cry all you want about Roe possibly being overturned. In my opinion, Roe v. Wade was another case of the Federal government overstepping its authority. Ever since the 14th amendment was ratified, the Federal government has been taking more power away from the States. By the way, was the 14th amendment ever really ratified? Abortion should be left to the States. Hopefully the next Supreme Court Justice will see it that way.
right, becuase the left doesn't consider an hispanic american or an african american to be "real" unless they are far left zealots, right?
roe v wade was replaced by pa v casey, by the way. abortion should be outlawed. maybe these skeezers will keep there skirts on when it is.
I'd be shocked, flabbergasted and astounded if Bush was even considering Alex Kozinski....one of the few true libertarians on the bench. Also one of the few judges that has his own cult of personality....for better or worse.
If the president is looking for a high profile minority judge, how about this guy? Just kidding, guys.
Is there a good site that has bios on some of the lesser known judges? The Post and sites like that of course run the better known judges, but I don't remember Kozinski.
IMO, Roe is settled law. There is no way the SC will change it. They may be asked to rule on some late-term interpretations, or other matter, but the core will not change. The THREAT of a change WILL be held up by the Kennedy wing of the Far Left group formerly know as the Democrat party, (no relation to my father's Democrat party) but only as a smokescreen to try to disqualify a nominee for which there is no other legitimate objection, but that will be just that; a smokescreen. Both sides know that is an empty threat but the positioning will be HUGE. But both sides MUST maintain position in order to appeal to the radical outside edges of their support base hence the posturing will look real, but it isn't. In the end, abortion positioning will not be the reason a nom is approved, or rejected.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1520138,00.html It would be nice to have a two party system again.
Not to be snippy.....but for anyone with a law degree....Kozinski is known far and wide. As I said in an earlier post....the dude has his own cult of personality. He doesn't just have law clerks.....he has groupies.
OK, whatever. That doesn't really help me very much. Do you know who Fred Terman is? (If you get interested in the history of silicon valley someday, I'll be glad to give you some good references.) I just thought you or some of our other lawyers might have better sources than those of us who are non-specialists.