At the time of the OConnor nomination in 1981, George Will wrote:
Recent Republican presidents have been notably incompetent at selecting Justices faithful to the presidents professed judicial values. Justices Warren, Brennan, Blackmun and Stevens have been among the, well, surprises. . . That [OConnor] supported Reagan against Gerald Ford in 1976 may prove to Reagan her civic virtue, but it reveals little about how she will handle the "equal protection" clause. Having shown little inclination toward jurisprudential theory, she is unlikely to supply what this Court most needs.
There were other voices at the time (including Terry Eastland) who doubted that OConnor would turn out to be a good selection, even though she was vetted at the Justice Department by none other than Kenneth Starr. Eastland was concerned that “O’Connor’s views on the Constitution and her understanding of judicial review are largely unknown.”
This is why it is essential that President Bush nominate someone that the Left regards as an "extremist," as only an "extremist" can be relied upon to defend the Constitution rather than regard it as a plaything for social engineering.
Absolutely, to use an extreme term. Extremism in defense of the Constitution is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of Americas founding principles is no virtue.
Conservatives should DEMAND Janice Rogers Brown. She was already deemed acceptable by "moderate" Democrats during the nuclear option fiasco. If she was acceptable for the appeals court, she is acceptable for the Supreme court. Our party does not promote a few tokens for minor positions - with Powell, Rice, Thomas, and others we have shown we are color blind as to the top jobs in the land. So ok, lets give a top job in the land to a judge more conservative than any others I have heard mentioned as condidates for this job, who happens to be a black woman.
Unlike Gonzalez, Brown has sterling conservative credentials and serious intellectual firepower. In fact, I think the speech Brown gave which caused Barbara Boxer to have a hissy fit on the floor of the Senate was derived from Nisbets ideas on community. A Nisbetian on the Supreme court!!! Oh happy day!!
Here is an excerpt from that excellent speech, delivered to the Federalist Society in Chicago:
At this moment, it seems likely leviathan will continue to lumber along, picking up ballast and momentum, crushing everything in its path. Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible
If the Democrats go all filibustery while insisting on someone who regards the Constitution as nothing more than a prompt for creative-writing exercises, then its time for a Preztalk to the nation along the lines of, "Some people in Congress say Ive nominated an extremist. That charge tells you more about where they stand than about my nominee. You, the American citizenry, deserve and should demand a justice who extremely committed to the Constitution, and who does not confuse personal preferences with the requirements of the law. Moderate judges performing contortions with a living Constitution have given us rulings that say its all right for local government to turn you out of your home and give it to a private business. Moderate doses of poison are still bad for you, and judges who feel free to hot-wire the Constitution and take it for a joy ride are extremely dangerous to your rights and liberties. This fight is important to me -- but more important to you. Let your Senators know what you think."