Based on the bios given in that article, I have no objections to Garza. If there are things left out of that article, that opinion could change, but based on that limited info, I have no problem with him. He seems to have a solid military, academic and judicial background. He came up through the ranks (moving from smaller courts on up) which I admire. He favors parental notification before minor abortions (something I agree with). His major stumbling block would seem to be the abortion issue, but even there, he doesn't seem to view abortion as something which should be completely illegal, he just questions whether or not it is a guaranteed federal right. I have no problem making abortion a state issue rather than a federal one. I just don't want someone that will move to issue a blanket federal ban on the procedure. His resume reads like the exact thing I would like to see (again, based on the info in the article): a moderate conservative with no overt political ties who makes decisions based upon a reading of the actual Constitution. Garza wouldn't be tops on my list (I really like Wilkinson and McConnell, and Garza is about even with Clement in my view), but if he were nominated and the Dems obstructed, I would not be pleased.
I am sure that whoever is the nominee, we'll learn much more about them than we really want to know. I think Garza is the strongest possibility from your list mainly for the (in my view superficial and unsignificant) reason that the president will be very tempted to want to nominate the first Latino Supreme Court Justice to replace the first woman Supreme Court Justice.
Marc Racicot might also be considered. Governor of Montana, then practiced law privately. Rumor was Bush asked him to be AG, but he turned it down. Was immensely popular in Montana, with 70% approval ratings. Is moderate on some issues such as gay marriage, but is conservative on abortion. If that doesn't happen, Robert Bork is still alive.
Wasn't he one of the leaders of Bush campaign team for the Florida recount in 2001? If I am remembering correctly, he had a lot to say, much of it pretty hard edged. Not the sort of thing that he'd be happy to explain now I'm guessing.
The initial rumor I heard here was that it would be announced today, but pushed back a week out of respect for the attacks in London.
Hmmmmm? In light of his health it certainly makes sense. Still, I just recently read an article by Tony Mauro (IIRC) saying that Rehnquist would not be retiring this summer because he already knew about O'Connor's retirement and doesn't want the Court to have to deal with two retirements in the same summer. If this is true....I wonder what the chances are for seeing a compromise along the lines of no filibuster if one of the nominees is conservative but the other is moderate?
Robert Novak is predicting that Chief Justice William Rehnquist will announce his retirement "before the week is over." Chicago Sun Times http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak07.html
COMPROMISE!!!!! Hahahahahahahah. Surely you jest? You haven't been reading the news much lately, have you?
Not pokin' fun at you-- perfectly sensible post-- but look at what we consider compromise in the current climate!?
The early speculation was that Renquist would make the announcement this week, but it's now being said that he'll hold off for a couple weeks after the events yesterday.
I doubt it. That could spell the end of social conservatives support for the Republicans. Maybe two moderate conservatives, but I think a lot of Republicans would object to missing a chance to change the court (mostly looking at Roe v Wade).
Well here's an interesting twist to this story......not that she'll take the advice but kind of amusing nonetheless. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/14/chief.oconnor/index.html
Thanks yossarian... that was funny! "Hello... this is Sandra!" "Hi Sandy... this is Barbara Boxer...did I catch you at a bad time?" "No Barbara...what's up?" "Well... we understand George is going to appoint a conservative...would you consider revising your decision to retire?" "No Barbara...I've already made plans to go to Aruba." "But Sandy... If the Chief Justice retires, that means George will get two appointments to the Supreme Court... I couldn't live with myself." "Sorry Barbra... I've had it with the Supremes... Justice Scalia pinched me once!" "Please Sandra... just serve a bit more... you don't have to render any decisions... just stay a while longer...a few photo appearances..." "No.... I have my Aruba tickets already... I'm staying at the same hotel where that blond chick was offed." "But Sandra... Bush could overturn Roe V. Wade... think of the women!" "I did!" "You stink Sandra... " "So do you Barby..."