This comment, by an unidentified reader of this blog, led Feddie to offer this exciting speculation: President Bush's Supreme Court nominee will be Judge Edith Hollan Jones, "The Horsewoman of the Right-Wing Apocalypse" (a high compliment here at UTR).
Meanwhile, all of the Alito-Luttig speculation has led Professor Douglas Berman to offer this equally delicious possibility: President Bush will nominate Judge Janice Rogers Brown to the Court, perhaps at this evening's wreath-laying ceremony in honor of the late Rosa Parks. (Professor Ann Althouse opines that announcing Judge Brown's nomination at the Rosa Parks ceremony would constitute "[a]n incredible moment of mind-shattering bad taste," and A3G is inclined to agree with her. But such a move would partake of a certain "so bad it's good" quality, too.)
Friends, we find ourselves in a win-win-win-win situation. All of the folks whose names have been bandied about in the past few days -- Samuel Alito, Michael Luttig,* Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Edith Jones, Karen Williams, Alice Batchelder, Emilio Garza -- would be great SCOTUS picks. They are all brilliant, splendidly credentialed, highly conservative jurists. Barring a very unforeseen development, we will all be extremely happy campers in the very near future.
* Does Article 3 Groupie harbor "player hate" for Judge Luttig, whose unmatched ability to feed his clerks to the Court leaves the rest of us out in the cold? Of course she does; she feels great resentment and schadenfreude towards Judge Luttig and his hardy crew of Luttigators. But A3G can't deny that Judge Luttig is a legal genius and a staunch conservative. As such, he would be an excellent SCOTUS nominee, as well as a very fine justice if confirmed. (A3G does not put much stock in these rumors about Judge Luttig, which are inconsistent with the incredible intellect he has demonstrated over his long judicial career.)
Not *all* would be good picks and can fairly be described as 'brilliant' conservatives.
In particular not Karen Williams and Priscilla Owen.
Anyway, the decision has been made, the President has returned from Camp David, and we should all know soon enough.
Let the Fun begin!
Posted by: Sam Hooft | October 30, 2005 at 02:01 PM
While it seems fairly clear that Brown would produce the "right" results for the conservative crowd, can we please stop there and venture clear of such terms as "brilliant" and "splendidly credentialed"?
True, Brown has served as an appellate judge for many years, including on the California Supreme Court and the DC Circuit. But to cite that as sufficient professional qualification for SCOTUS membership ignores the fact that, in all other relevant areas, she cannot measure up to her fellow candidates, particularly with respect to her (1) mediocre educational/scholarly background, (2) political promotions based on connections rather than merit, and (3) having been rated as NOT QUALIFIED by the Cal Bar.
Unless one's only criterion is reaching ideologically correct results, Brown is anything but qualified for the high court. If she is nominated, that is most certainly not a "win" for our country.
Posted by: TRL | October 30, 2005 at 12:02 PM