Supreme Court Thoughts

Of course, we now know John Roberts was the nominee. The Prowler at AmSpec helps us understand why Edith Clement was everywhere. She was a very good feint aimed at forcing to send out their attack email and then have to send the same email with name altered. Message: we oppose anybody.

My reasons for thinking Clement was it were not related to the press buzz, but it doesn’t matter now. After reading the AmSpec article, I’m wondering whether Rehnquist didn’t influence the choice of Roberts, his former clerk. He may have threatened not to retire unless Roberts was picked. Pure speculation on my part (and we may have some sense of how good my speculative powers are).

The Prowler always has juicy inside-the-camp Democrat quotes about whatever’s going on. So much so that some doubt their reality. Not I, being a big fan of the magazine’s editor. Here’s the latest one:

“We are expecting one, if not two, more nominees to the Supreme Court this calendar year,” says a senior Democratic strategist. “We have to be true to our values and defend them against a nomination like Roberts, but we have to be realistic. He’s going to get through. But we have bigger fights ahead that will be even more pivotal. We’ve advised folks to keep their powder dry and not to waste it on this fight. Wait for the biggies to come.”


24 thoughts on “Supreme Court Thoughts

  1. If the Clement “leak” was a feint, then it was well executed. I like it.

    Since the election the state of political rhetoric and gamesmanship has been disappointing. I hope that there is a good “battle” on the horizon, where we can see politics in action (though it would be nice to do without the ad hominems).

    I would really enjoy seeing Ann Coulter nominated; not because I support her, but because it would be fun to watch the fall-out.

  2. A Coulter nomination would be the greatest spectacle in the history of American politics, maybe even more than Monica.

  3. I was hoping (not seriously though) for a Coulter feint…

    “I was thinking Ann Coulter would be an excellent choice, but she recussed herself (on a book tour or something,) so here is my much more moderate (by comparison) choice…”

  4. That would have been Presidential humor of the highest order. Can you imagine the gasp before the sentence was finished.

  5. Roberts is a far better choice than I would have predicted from Bush. There are some concerns but no huge red flags.

    I have to wonder if bush felt he couldn’t afford another bruising fight right now what with all the other fires he’s got going at the moment.

  6. Speaking of Coulter, she is less than thrilled about the nomination. Not that she is by any means the standard or even one whose opinion should influence the outcome more than another, but it is worth noting.

  7. Extremists on both the left and right are put out about the Presidents choice…

    That’s good news for the less extreme among us.

  8. Something tells me that when he begins handing out rulings, the extremists on the Right will be happy and those on the Left will not be.

    When has Bush disappointed in the past?

  9. Speaking of Coulter, she is less than thrilled about the nomination

    Ann Coulter is an entertainer. Her job is to look good and say outrageous things in an amusing manner. She’s very, very good at it. I’m not saying she doesn’t know a lot about constitutional law — she does. She just doesn’t let that get in the way of her work.

    Reform Club is also, of course, in the entertainment business. But none of us look nearly as good in a red satin strapless gown as Ann does. I’d wager Karnick has the best legs, though.

  10. Coulter’s a demagogue. She’ll say anything, anything at all, to get attention for herself and make a few bucks. I try to ignore that type (and yes I lump Michael Moore in that catagory as well).

  11. I agree with both Kathy and Tlaloc.(How often does that sentence get written?) She is an entertainer, and she is good at what she does. As far as her attractiveness is concerned, she is better looking than Michael Savage.

    C’est tout.

  12. When has Bush disappointed in the past?

    Raising tarrifs

    Not vetoing massive budgets

    Not comming out stronger against the Assault Weapons Ban

    To name a few off the top of my head…

  13. As far as her attractiveness is concerned, she is better looking than Michael Savage.

    If I’m going to pick my conservative pundits based on looks, I’ll go with Michelle Malkin any day.

    If I’m going to pick them based on entertainment value, then I’ll have to stick with Michael Savage. Crazy as he may be (nuke Mecca to send a message to the Muslims?) he certainly has a gift for Jewish humor.

    As for Coulter, unless you find jokes about killing innocent people funny (“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”) she isn’t funny. Pointless and exaggerated hyperbole doesn’t do it for me. And as for looks, I admit she was sexy in college. But not anymore.

  14. You have no idea what kind of great calves a guy gets from carrying around extra weight. I’ll send ya a pic, Kathy!

  15. “Um. Wow, Tlaloc. Congratulations on crossing the line I won’t. :)”

    Just observing a point about engineering: it’s demand driven.

    “Sorry Tlaloc, that one was over the line for this family website. It’s deleted.”

    Well alright, you must get really upset by the majority of the web though if that minor comment was far too explicit for you.

  16. Wow, what did I miss?

    Hunter: If you’re going to remove something juicy, don’t taunt us like that!

  17. Well half of comedy is always pushing the envelope. The other half is timing, but in a text format timing is difficult.

  18. I’m no prude, but some of my young relations read this site and I’m protecting their innocence. We had that debate about whether innocence is to be prized. I prize it.

  19. I would say that the political discussion here is pretty innocence-destroying by itself.

Comments are closed.