Category: Dubya’s New Justices

Alito Conflicted.

A true Dubya conservative? Aside from the usual Federalist Society wingnuttery, Judge Samuel Alito also appears to have some considerable conflict-of-interest problems on his record. “Alito had at least $390,000 in Vanguard mutual funds when he ruled in a 2002 case that favored the company. After a party to the suit complained, he stepped aside and another panel of judges reheard the case. Alito also ruled in a 1996 case involving Smith Barney, which was his brokerage firm.” This probably won’t derail his nomination by itself, but, still, Judiciary Committee members Kennedy and Feingold, among others, want answers.

The choices of Judge Sam.

Wise? Not hardly. It’s become even clearer since yesterday that Samuel Alito is no Sandra Day O’Connor, and that he’s all for ultra-conservative judicial activism. The Left appears ready for war this time around, but Alito’s fate probably rests with a few GOP moderates, including Specter, Collins, Snowe and Chafee. Update: Worse than Scalia?

“Scalito”‘s Way.

Dubya kicks off his first post-indictment week by throwing chum to the right-wing fundies and nominating Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to the Supreme Court. So far, he sounds more John Roberts than Harriet Miers, but “[u]nlike Roberts, he has opined from the bench on abortion rights, church-state separation and gender discrimination to the pleasure of conservatives and displeasure of liberals.” Well, if the White House wants a battle to shore up its right flank, it looks like they’re going to get it.

Miers gets the hook.

Rather lamely citing a potential dispute over executive privilege (a.k.a. the Krauthammer option), the White House removes Harriet Miers from Court consideration. Obviously, this isn’t a big surprise after the recent right-wing uprising, but it does mean that Dubya’s next choice will undoubtedly veer closer to the fundie side of the fence. With that in mind, who’s next? Update: Washington reacts.

Bernanke to the Banke.

So, as of yesterday, Ben Bernanke is replacing Alan Greenspan at the Fed. (“If Miers’s defenders have dismissed her critics as elitists, they showed no reticence yesterday in extolling Bernanke’s elite credentials.”) His conservatism notwithstanding, it sounds as if the choice was a solid one.

Marcy to Miers.

“Although it’s obviously too soon to situate the Bush administration in history, it’s possible…that it may be leading us into a period where politics is defined according to the old spoils system rather than the technocratic assumptions ushered in by the Progressive Era.” With the Miers pick in mind, Slate‘s David Greenberg reviews the sordid history of Supreme Court cronyism from Jackson to LBJ.

Harriet the Spy?

“She may turn out to be the greatest thing since Antonin Scalia, but when will we know that?” Two days after the Harriet Miers pick, and despite news reports accentuating her strong evangelicism, conservatives are still openly perturbed by the choice (George Will is particularly livid.) As for how she stands on the issues, we still know very little, other than her mixed record on gay rights and probable pro-life stance. (Well, presumably, she’s also pro-lottery.) Nevertheless, it sounds like she’s probably already got Harry Reid’s vote.

Round 2: Miers.

In the early morning, Dubya chooses White House Counsel Harriet Miers as the next Supreme Court nominee. (Searching far and wide again, I see.) Well, let the vetting begin. On the plus side, the fundies seem perturbed, and she has some Dem donations in her past. On the other hand, she’s a rabid Bush loyalist, calling him “the most brilliant man she had ever met.” (Get out much?) Update: The Weekly Standard‘s Bill Kristol is disappointed, depressed, and demoralized by the Miers pick, while Legal Times was already unenthused about her. Update 2: Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick and Emily Bazelon are similarly nonplussed: “Can anyone really imagine that she’d be the nominee if she weren’t a woman and the president’s friend and loyal adviser? Cronyism and affirmative action: It’s a nasty mix.“

Dubya’s 2nd Round Draft Pick.

“I will pick a person who can do the job. But I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country.” As the Roberts nod goes to the full Senate (my thoughts on Roberts below), Dubya hints at a woman and/or minority justice for O’Connor’s seat. With these parameters in mind, Salon‘s Tim Grieve surveys the most likely choices. Among them are faces familiar — Edith Clement, Priscilla Owen, and Janice Rogers Brown, for example — and unfamiliar, such as Maureen Mahoney, the “female John Roberts.” (And, of course, there’s always Gonzales, although his star seems to have dimmed.)