We’ll know today, this article says. The top three are said to be Alito, Luttig, and (Peter, sit down) Batchelder. Harry Reid says:
"If he wants to divert attention from all of his many problems, he can send us somebody that is going to create a lot of problems. I think this time he would be ill-advised to do that. But the right wing, the radical right wing, is pushing a lot of his buttons, and he may just go along with them."
Having been attuned to Reid’s political instincts last time, I don’t think the President will make the same mistake again.
This article adds McConnell, Karen Williams, and Maura Corrigan to the mix, and contains another Reid quote:
"The president should come forward with some middle-of-the-road person, somebody that is going to be a good Supreme Court justice, not somebody that’s going to be writing the law from the bench."
The good news here is that we all apparently agree now that legislating from the bench is a bad thing to do. The President may be under fire, but he is still setting the agenda. And the Democrats can’t offer an alternative that doesn’t echo his rhetoric.
This NYT article adds Priscilla Owen to the WaPo list and doesn’t mention McConnell. The big issue here is the filibuster. Reid makes yet another appearance, objecting most strenuously to Alito and Owen, and mentioning a filibuster.
I say to Reid: make my day. Public opinion will support the President on his judicial nomination, and he can take a page from Bill Clinton’s government shutdown book (sans unconventional uses of the oval office) in the face of Democratic obstructionism. I’m feeling better already.
Update: As noted in the first comment, it’s Alito. More later, once I’ve had time to think about it.
It’s Alito. A formidable pick, I think. Will Reid, Kennedy, Boxer and the rest go ballistic now? (Or perhaps more to the point, will NARAL, the ACLU, and the Alliance for Justice order them to?)
Having predicted last time that Bush would not pick an ideologue, or even any of the most discussed names, I’m going to risk all my winnings from those bets and predict:
1)this time, the candidate WILL have clear ties to intellectual conservativism;
2) BUT will not have written that Roe was wrongly decided or should be overruled or anything that could be an obvious target, but instead will have said more subtle and moderate things about the Court’s role, perhaps.
3) Will not be one of names most discussed and wished for in conservative circles
4) Again this time, will not have been an appeals judge but will have obvious intellectual credentials (professor, perhaps?)
Well, I was never a shrewd gambler ...
Well, I was wrong on almost all points! This always happens when I bet my original winnings.
Yep, Rob, sign over the farm. I think Bush has been stung by his last pick, and in a weird way this is his revenge. He’s given us the fight we all wanted. Thankee, George!
Batchelder or Luttig would have been great, but Alito is a good choice too. I am glad the President looked at such a strong crop of candidates this time around.
I have received better customer service from prisoners making 15 cents a day! I have emailed this company twice and phoned them once, and they will not respond to anything! I have not heard back from them at all, and it has been over a week since I first contacted them. As far as I can tell, they don't actually have a customer service department. I was so frustrated that I called them to cancel my order 4 days ago, and they have not cancelled my order! I ordered this from the manufacturers website, bookholder.com