pageok
pageok
pageok
Chicago Tribune on Nomination Politics:

Chicago Tribune has a story today about liberal Republicans joining with some Democrats to express their views on a proper Supreme Court nominee.

According to the story, as a result of opposition from liberal Republicans, Edith Jones is reported to be "no longer under serious" consideration for the vacancy.

As for the idea expressed in the article that the President should "appoint someone like O'Connor," I'm not sure that can actually be done. As one of my colleagues observed to me one day, "The problem with pragmatists is that every one is different," so it's not really clear that you can aim for someone "like O'Connor." Moreover, as Charles Krauthammer noted in his column on O'Connor, the problem with O'Connor's pragmatism was that you could never be quite sure what factors she would consider to be relevant or outcome-determinant in any given case. In other words, the next pragmatist could very well weigh every factor completely differently from O'Connor and have everything come out with a reverse result.

Justin D. Hein (mail) (www):
"Basically, we want someone who is a judicial activist, liberal at-heart."
7.14.2005 9:49pm
A. Non:
I didn't read anything in the linked article about "liberal senators."
7.14.2005 10:10pm
A. Non:
...make that "liberal republicans."
7.14.2005 10:11pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
Rehnquist denies retirement plans, NYT reports; will stay on as long as health permits.

Do not hold your breath waiting for everyone who reported "he'll announce his retirement next _____" to admit that they had no clue what they were talking about.
7.14.2005 11:20pm
Shelby (mail):
"weigh every factor completely differently from O'Connor and have everything come out with a reverse result"

Cool! An anti-O'Connor pragmatist! Judicial philosophy meets particle physics -- if the O'Connor and anti-O'Connor come into contact, what sort of reaction results?
7.15.2005 8:26pm