Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court as, no doubt, most of you have heard by now. While I have much to say on this topic, I want to offer a prediction. This is going out on a limb since reported White House leaks seem to be pointing at Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. However, as political tricks go, leaks often times are an intentional trick to trick the opposition into believing a move will come from one side when it comes from another. It’s a classic war strategy. Bring the main thrust of the force down the middle or from a flank while a small group of elites flank the enemy and deal a death blow while the enemy is not expecting it and defending against the main thrust. Sun Tzu said, in The Art of War:
“In battle, confrontation is done, directly, victory is gained by surprise.” ~Sun Tzu
Here are my surprise predictions:
1. The next Supreme Court Justice will be from the Senate. The reason for this is that Sandra Day O’Connor has a legislative background, and thus was able to establish compromise on the Court. She was the key swing vote in major decisions. Also, I think the Senate will be reluctant to deny one of their own the seat, be the nominee a Democrat or a Republican.
2. The next Supreme Court Justice nominee will be Joe Lieberman (D-Conn), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala) or possibly Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
Now these are only predictions. We will find out in the next day or two if the leaks are correct or if they are diversionary and if any of my predicted nominees comes to fruition.
{ 22 comments }
Mike 07.01.05 at 2:15 pm
In the case of Joe Lieberman you’re out of your mind… There is no way Bush will nominate a known Liberal… Concerning Orrin Hatch, he’s a Conservative, but a very moderate one… The Supreme Court is toooooo Liberal as it is and Bush will nominate a true Conservative to replace O’Connor and another strong Conservative when Rhenquist retires… Lieberman — NO WAY…
Aaron Brazell 07.01.05 at 2:21 pm
I don’t know what you’re smoking, Mike, but Bush is no conservative. What on God’s green earth has you convinced he is going to nominate a conservative. If the tred is in any way telling, it will be a moderate who will be nominated (Alberto Gonzales included).
Aaron Brazell 07.01.05 at 2:26 pm
Ace of Spades has an excellent point on what I am saying, Mike:
Mike 07.01.05 at 3:00 pm
How can you ask what I’m smoking after you’ve predicted Bush would nominate another Liberal to the court… The nomination for a Supreme Court justice is an entirely different story… These people have the ability to change our way of life as they just did with the eminent domain decision and there is no way Bush would nominate a Liberal. He may nominate Gonzales to fill O’Connor’s seat, which would not make Conservative’s very happy, but then when Rhenquist retires, or dies you can bet a strict Conservative will be nominated as Chief Justice… A side note on this will be whether the Senate Republicans can grow a pair and stand up to the Liberal onslaught that everyone knows is coming no matter who is nominated. Kennedy is already making statements on how he will fight Bush’s nominations if they don’t meet his requirements. I say pull the Nuclear Option if they start pulling their shit…
Mike 07.01.05 at 3:03 pm
And by the way Bush is certainly no LIBERAL… When it comes to certain values he is totally Conservative and knowing what the Supreme Court is capable of doing he will not jeopardize his beliefs… He may not be the Conservative everyone thought when it comes to spending, but in most other areas he certainly is…
Aaron 07.01.05 at 3:04 pm
Mike–
Let’s just make sure we’re speaking the same language for a minute. Lieberman is not a liberal. He is a democrat, but he’s a moderate.
Secondly, it makes good political sense (at least in the short term) to nominate a Democratic Senator. Take one away and you’re minus one opposition vote.
Thirdly, let’s start using the word “constuctionist” instead of “conservative” when it comes to judges.
Aaron 07.01.05 at 3:06 pm
When it comes to spending. Or when it comes to social agenda. Or when it comes to immigration. Or when it comes to smaller government. Need I go on?
Mike 07.01.05 at 3:15 pm
In the case of Joe Lieberman you’re out of your mind… There is no way Bush will nominate a known Liberal… Concerning Orrin Hatch, he’s a Conservative, but a very moderate one… The Supreme Court is toooooo Liberal as it is and Bush will nominate a true Conservative to replace O’Connor and another strong Conservative when Rhenquist retires… Lieberman — NO WAY…
Aaron Brazell 07.01.05 at 3:21 pm
I don’t know what you’re smoking, Mike, but Bush is no conservative. What on God’s green earth has you convinced he is going to nominate a conservative. If the tred is in any way telling, it will be a moderate who will be nominated (Alberto Gonzales included).
Aaron Brazell 07.01.05 at 3:26 pm
Ace of Spades has an excellent point on what I am saying, Mike:
Mike 07.01.05 at 4:00 pm
How can you ask what I’m smoking after you’ve predicted Bush would nominate another Liberal to the court… The nomination for a Supreme Court justice is an entirely different story… These people have the ability to change our way of life as they just did with the eminent domain decision and there is no way Bush would nominate a Liberal. He may nominate Gonzales to fill O’Connor’s seat, which would not make Conservative’s very happy, but then when Rhenquist retires, or dies you can bet a strict Conservative will be nominated as Chief Justice… A side note on this will be whether the Senate Republicans can grow a pair and stand up to the Liberal onslaught that everyone knows is coming no matter who is nominated. Kennedy is already making statements on how he will fight Bush’s nominations if they don’t meet his requirements. I say pull the Nuclear Option if they start pulling their shit…
Mike 07.01.05 at 4:03 pm
And by the way Bush is certainly no LIBERAL… When it comes to certain values he is totally Conservative and knowing what the Supreme Court is capable of doing he will not jeopardize his beliefs… He may not be the Conservative everyone thought when it comes to spending, but in most other areas he certainly is…
Aaron 07.01.05 at 4:04 pm
Mike–
Let’s just make sure we’re speaking the same language for a minute. Lieberman is not a liberal. He is a democrat, but he’s a moderate.
Secondly, it makes good political sense (at least in the short term) to nominate a Democratic Senator. Take one away and you’re minus one opposition vote.
Thirdly, let’s start using the word “constuctionist” instead of “conservative” when it comes to judges.
Aaron 07.01.05 at 4:06 pm
When it comes to spending. Or when it comes to social agenda. Or when it comes to immigration. Or when it comes to smaller government. Need I go on?
Mike 07.02.05 at 10:33 am
And your definition of Constructionism is????
Aaron Brazell 07.02.05 at 11:07 am
Constructionism is how the Constitution is applied. You know what constructionism is Mike. Technically, it is strict constuctionism I am referring to. Also, there’s originalism.
Mike 07.02.05 at 11:21 am
Yes, I know what Constructionism is and also what is meant by Originalism, both something the Liberals of the Supreme Court cannot live by, as exampled by their recent decision concerning eminent domain and the right all Americans have to own personal property. OK, I agree with you that we’ll call Bush a Constructionist when it comes to Judicial nominations… Granted he is not a Conservative in many other area’s, especially in spending and immigration, which I totally disagree with him on.
I feel it would be a big mistake to put Lieberman on the high court no matter how moderate you feel he is as a Senator. There are other Senator’s with a more Conservative (Constructionist) tilt who would help to bring order to a left leaning court. O’Connor was a swing vote with the Liberals on many occasions and I feel we need someone who will interpret the Constitution not by twisting its words, but by how it was originally written. Five Liberals on the court continue to do just the opposite…
Mike 07.02.05 at 11:33 am
And your definition of Constructionism is????
Aaron Brazell 07.02.05 at 12:07 pm
Constructionism is how the Constitution is applied. You know what constructionism is Mike. Technically, it is strict constuctionism I am referring to. Also, there’s originalism.
Mike 07.02.05 at 12:21 pm
Yes, I know what Constructionism is and also what is meant by Originalism, both something the Liberals of the Supreme Court cannot live by, as exampled by their recent decision concerning eminent domain and the right all Americans have to own personal property. OK, I agree with you that we’ll call Bush a Constructionist when it comes to Judicial nominations… Granted he is not a Conservative in many other area’s, especially in spending and immigration, which I totally disagree with him on.
I feel it would be a big mistake to put Lieberman on the high court no matter how moderate you feel he is as a Senator. There are other Senator’s with a more Conservative (Constructionist) tilt who would help to bring order to a left leaning court. O’Connor was a swing vote with the Liberals on many occasions and I feel we need someone who will interpret the Constitution not by twisting its words, but by how it was originally written. Five Liberals on the court continue to do just the opposite…
A. J. 07.06.05 at 2:39 am
Interesting discussion…If I may comment, as we have seen Bush just came out in defense of Gonzales. Is that a sign? I’m leaning against it because it seems too obvious, except I do believe Bush would put him on the court. They are good friends. The guy is only 50, and could be around a long time. If pro-lifers are upset about that prospect, they should know by now that Bush doesn’t pay attention to popularity polls.
A. J. 07.06.05 at 3:39 am
Interesting discussion…If I may comment, as we have seen Bush just came out in defense of Gonzales. Is that a sign? I’m leaning against it because it seems too obvious, except I do believe Bush would put him on the court. They are good friends. The guy is only 50, and could be around a long time. If pro-lifers are upset about that prospect, they should know by now that Bush doesn’t pay attention to popularity polls.
Comments on this entry are closed.