Jon Rowe looks at the possibility that Bush might nominate either Arlen Specter or Orrin Hatch for the Supreme Court in his second term. A Specter nomination, given the current enmity being shown him by Bush's bulldogs in the Senate, the media and various religious right organizations, seems slightly less likely than me being invited over to Robert Bork's house for dinner. But a Hatch nomination seems a very real possibility for several reasons.
First, Hatch would satisfy most of the folks on the Christian right. He is a reliable religious conservative on almost every issue, though the fact that he is a Mormon, a religion many evangelical Christians consider a cult, might be an issue with some of them. Second, as outgoing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he would be given extraordinary latitude and benefit of the doubt by his colleagues, even those on the other side of the aisle; the Senate is nothing if not a political country club.
I can't think of many political drawbacks to a Hatch nomination. His age might be a factor, I suppose, as he is already 70 years old, but other than that I think he would be fairly easily confirmed, especially if it was to replace Rehnquist on the court and not a more liberal Justice. Having to replace Hatch in the Senate would likely not be a major issue, as the Republicans now have a safe lead in Senate votes and Utah would undoubtedly send up another conservative to replace him. All in all, this seems like the best move politically for Bush of all the scenarios we've looked at so far.
- Log in to post comments
Hatch? On the court? Good lord. He so reveres the Constitution that he offers an amendment a month it seems to improve it. Flag burning amendment. Prayer in school amendment. Let My Friend The Terminator Become President amendment. The list goes on and on. He has even, on occasion, embarassed Republicans here in Zion. And believe me, that is a very very hard thing to do.
Hatch on the court. My god.
LOL. I figured our favorite unreconstructed New Deal liberal from the great state of Utah would break out in hives at the thought of Hatch on the Supreme Court. He's not a guy I'd support for the court, certainly. Anyone who babbles on about "judicial activism" as much as he does should be kept as far away from the court as possible, in my opinion. But politically, it would be a very safe choice for the President to make, perhaps his only politically safe choice. That makes me think it's pretty likely.
Hatch would be easily confirmed, I think, but I see his age as a big factor. Historically, the average tenure of a Supreme Court Justice is something like 18 years, and mortality tables tell us that Hatch doesn't have that many years to give. I agree that he's the sort of candidate that would be very attractive to Bush, but for this factor. If Hatch were 10 or 15 years younger, I'd put my money on him as the favorite.
Specter would also be an attractive choice, but for the litmus test that's not a litmus test. Any potential nominee who has expressed even the slightest prevarications about overruling Roe has effectively withdrawn his or her name from candidacy. Surely Specter knows this; might it be the reason he dared to speak about it? The life of a leading Republican senator is a pretty sweet gig these days.
All of this talk of Roe raises what is, in my mind, one of the biggest questions of the day: if you're in the Republican leadership, do you really want to nominate someone to the Court who will overrule Roe? Sure, the evangelicals and fundamentalists want it gone, but what about the voters who are more moderate on this issue, but nevertheless vote Republican? Do you really want to nominate a Justice who will vote to overrule Roe and risk scaring that voting bloc to the Democratic side? If you're President Bush, perhaps it is safer to nominate someone who you can publicly claim you believe is pro-life, but who you know isn't likely to overrule Roe. Thoughts and comments?
All of this talk of Roe raises what is, in my mind, one of the biggest questions of the day: if you're in the Republican leadership, do you really want to nominate someone to the Court who will overrule Roe? Sure, the evangelicals and fundamentalists want it gone, but what about the voters who are more moderate on this issue, but nevertheless vote Republican? Do you really want to nominate a Justice who will vote to overrule Roe and risk scaring that voting bloc to the Democratic side? If you're President Bush, perhaps it is safer to nominate someone who you can publicly claim you believe is pro-life, but who you know isn't likely to overrule Roe. Thoughts and comments?
Interesting theory, Dan, and not terribly far fetched. Polls pretty consistently show that the public is pro-choice by about a 2 to 1 margin, though they also support moderate restrictions on abortion such as a ban on partial birth abortions, waiting periods, notification, and so forth. That's never seriously been at risk because of the courts, at least not since 1993. If Roe was at real risk of being overturned, the Republicans might very well find themselves losing those middle ground voters.
Actually, it would be nice if Bush would nominate someone who specifically states that he would vote to overrule RvW. Let the Republicans SOGOTP ("S" stands for the four letter word that begins with "s" and ends with "hit", the rest stands for "or get off the pot"). If Bush isn't willing to do that, then what does he have?
Silly me. Bush has "bash the fags." He wants to bash the fags as a substitute for overruling RvW. There are probably more women who get abortions in a few years than there are gay people, and a quarter of them will vote for Republicans anyway.
BTW, I meant that to say that a quarter of the gay people will vote for Republicans anyway.
Certainly at the national level.
Although it should be evident that the Dems running nationally don't give many reasons for gay people to vote for them. Kerry is only the latest example.
I think I agree with Dan, I don't think the Republicans really have any interest whatsoever in abortion.
Certainly, if it mattered to Bush, I think he would have pursued it in his first term immediately after 9-11 when the whole world had his back. I'm not saying I think he is pro-choice, I'm just saying, I think the strategists have realised that it is not a good 'plank' to stand on. So, being against RVW in speeches gives them the moral high ground, and not ever doing anything to overturn it keeps them from losing moderate votas