Bush Supreme Court candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Roberts is sworn in as Chief Justice by senior Associate Justice John Paul Stevens in the East Room of the White House on the same day as his confirmation, September 29, 2005.
Enlarge
John Roberts is sworn in as Chief Justice by senior Associate Justice John Paul Stevens in the East Room of the White House on the same day as his confirmation, September 29, 2005.
Samuel Alito is sworn in as an Associate Justice by Chief Justice John Roberts in the East Room of the White House on the day after his confirmation, February 1, 2006.
Enlarge
Samuel Alito is sworn in as an Associate Justice by Chief Justice John Roberts in the East Room of the White House on the day after his confirmation, February 1, 2006.

Speculation has abounded over potential nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States by George W. Bush since before his presidency.

In the summer of 2005, this speculation became newsworthy, due to the announcement of the retirement of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on July 1. President Bush announced federal appellate judge John Roberts as O'Connor's replacement on July 19.

On September 5, two days after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Bush renominated Roberts as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States. He was confirmed by the Senate on September 29, 2005.

On October 3, Bush nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers to succeed O'Connor. However, Miers withdrew her nomination on October 27 after facing significant opposition.

On October 31, Bush nominated another federal appellate judge, Samuel Alito, as his new choice to replace O'Connor. Alito was confirmed as the 110th Justice of the Supreme Court on January 31, 2006.

Contents

[edit] Overview

Throughout much of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States was clearly the least powerful branch of the government, just as is often considered the Founding Fathers' intention, and nominations to that body, although important, were not the source of great political controversy as they are today. Until the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist, the composition of the Supreme Court had remained unchanged since 1994, the second longest time period without a membership change in U.S. history (the longest having been from 1812–1823).

Furthermore, the current court has been sharply divided on a number of high-profile issues, including abortion rights, affirmative action, the extent of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, eminent domain, gay rights, the separation of church and state under the Establishment Clause, sovereign immunity, and states' rights. The number of close votes in cases involving these areas suggests that a change of one or two key justices could completely shift the thinking of the Court on such issues.

[edit] Politics

When asked about the kind of justices he would appoint to the Supreme Court, President George W. Bush responded: "I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law. Judges interpret the Constitution. ... And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there." In more detail, Bush in 1999 told reporter Fred Barnes of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard that he would nominate judges to the court in the mold of controversial originalist Justice Antonin Scalia [1].

[edit] The filibuster

Soon after the inauguration of Bush as president in January, 2001, many liberal academics became worried that he would begin packing the federal judiciary with conservative jurists. Yale law professor, Bruce Ackerman, wrote an article in the February, 2001, edition of the liberal magazine The American Prospect that encouraged the use of the filibuster to stop Bush from placing any nominee on the Supreme Court during his first term [2]. In addition, law professors Cass Sunstein (University of Chicago) and Laurence Tribe (Harvard), along with Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center, counselled Senate Democrats in April, 2001, "to scrutinize judicial nominees more closely than ever." Specifically, they said, "there was no obligation to confirm someone just because they are scholarly or erudite [3]."

On May 9, 2001, President Bush announced his first eleven court of appeals nominees in a special White House ceremony [4]. There was immediate concern expressed by liberal groups like the Alliance for Justice [5]. From June, 2001, to January, 2003, when the Senate was controlled by the Democrats, the most conservative appellate nominees were delayed in the Senate Judiciary Committee. However, after the 2002 mid-term elections in which the Republicans regained control of the Senate by a 51-49 margin, these same nominees began to be moved through the committee [6].

With no other way to block confirmation, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12, 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered [7]. Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. Eventually, Estrada withdrew his nomination.

[edit] The "nuclear option"

As a result of these ten filibusters, Senate Republicans began to threaten to change the existing Senate rules by using what Senator Trent Lott termed the "nuclear option". This change in rules would eliminate the use of the filibuster to prevent judicial confirmation votes. However, with only a two vote majority, the Republicans were in a weak position to implement this procedural maneuver.

Things changed in 2005 due to the 2004 elections. With President Bush winning re-election by a clear margin and the Republicans picking up further Senate seats (55-45), the "nuclear option" became a more viable strategy to ensure confirmation. On May 24, 2005, seven senators of each party, called the Gang of 14, in a deal to avoid the use of the "nuclear option", agreed to drop the filibuster against three of the ten blocked court of appeals nominees: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor. In addition, the senators in the group agreed to block future judicial filibusters except in cases involving "extraordinary circumstances". Despite these agreements, however, some observers have noted that the chances are still high that the Democrats will filibuster if any one of these three controversial nominees is nominated to the Supreme Court.

Although there has been a long history of Supreme Court nominees being rejected, only one Supreme Court nominee has ever been filibustered. In 1968, Chief Justice nominee Abe Fortas was filibustered and withdrew after a short period.

During the summer of 2005, it was assumed that the Democrats would filibuster any Supreme Court nominee who would change the ideological composition of the court. Initially, this conjecture seemed to be born out when conservative jurist John Roberts was renominated to replace conservative Chief Justice Rehnquist. The confirmation process went relatively smoothly with no threat of a filibuster. Later, however, the hypothesis was disproved. When Bush chose another conservative, appellate judge Samuel Alito, to replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, opponents of Alito could not generate enough votes to prevent cloture from being invoked on his nomination. Very soon afterward, he was successfully confirmed.

[edit] Consultations with the U.S. Senate

As the 2004–2005 term of the Supreme Court ended, there was a flurry of rumours that Rehnquist, who was undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer, would soon retire. On June 27, 2005, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) suggested that the next appointment to the Court should come from outside the judiciary. Reid suggested the appointment of one of four Republican Senators, none of whom possessed previous judicial experience: Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Mike Crapo of Idaho and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The list did not include the name of Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a former justice on the Texas Supreme Court. Reid declined to address the omission [8].

Unexpectedly, on July 1, 2005, it was not Rehnquist who announced his retirement, but it was O'Connor. On July 12, Bush met at the White House with the party leaders and ranking Judiciary Committee members from the two major parties — Republicans Bill Frist and Arlen Specter, and Democrats Reid and Patrick Leahy — to discuss the nomination process. During the meeting, the Democrats offered the President the names of three "moderate" Hispanic federal judges that they could accept: Sonia Sotomayor of the Second Circuit, Edward Prado of the Fifth Circuit, and Ricardo Hinojosa, a Texas district judge. Reid later told the press he was disappointed that the President had not chosen to discuss his own choice of possible candidates with the Democrats. In the conservative magazine National Review, the three candidates suggested by the Democrats were quickly dismissed as being offered in bad faith because they were too liberal for a conservative president to seriously consider [9].

On the same day as the meeting with the President, First Lady Laura Bush announced in an interview during an official visit to Africa a preference for her husband to nominate a woman to O'Connor's seat. Bush was surprised at his wife's public comments on the Supreme Court, but said he would be open to hearing her advice when she returned from her trip.

[edit] John Roberts nomination

John Roberts, now Chief Justice, is pictured here with President Bush at the announcement of his first nomination on July 19, 2005.
Enlarge
John Roberts, now Chief Justice, is pictured here with President Bush at the announcement of his first nomination on July 19, 2005.

On the evening of July 19, 2005, Bush announced his first Supreme Court nominee, John G. Roberts, Jr., a highly regarded former Supreme Court litigator and conservative judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals . During the day leading up to the announcement, there had been much media speculation that one of either two female judges on the Fifth Circuit would get the nod: moderate Edith Brown Clement or conservative Edith H. Jones [10] [11]. Clement was considered the frontrunner. About an hour before the televised announcement, however, information was leaked to the press concerning the choice of Roberts [12] [13].

On September 3, 2005, Rehnquist died. Two days later, on the morning of September 5, Bush announced that he would switch Roberts' nomination and instead nominate him for the newly vacant post of Chief Justice of the United States, once again leaving O'Connor's vacancy without a replacement nominee.

[edit] Possible O'Connor Replacements

On September 6, Specter encouraged the President to fill O'Connor's position with a woman, saying that the Supreme Court should have a minimum of two female justices [14]. On September 9, Laura Bush reiterated her previous wish to also see a female nominee [15].

On the Thursday before Roberts' confirmation hearing, one of Reid's aides said that the nomination of several candidates said to be on the President's short list to replace O'Connor — conservative appellate Judges J. Michael Luttig, Emilio Garza and Edith Jones — would be unacceptable to the Democrats, implying that any of them would be filibustered [16]. Several days later, Specter made it known that he felt that it was too early for Bush to elevate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court [17].

Roberts' confirmation hearing for Chief Justice was held from Monday, September 12, to Friday, September 16. During the week of the hearing, there was much talk that Priscilla Owen would be the next nominee, but columnist Robert Novak reported that by Friday, Reid had told Frist that Judge Owen would also be filibustered if chosen [18].

On Wednesday, September 21, Bush had another meeting with Senators Frist, Specter, Reid and Leahy to discuss possible Supreme Court nominations. On the day before, Laura Bush mentioned publicly for the third time that she would like to see a female nominee. At the same time, Reid stated that the nomination of any of the previously filibustered appellate nominees would be viewed by the Democrats as "a poke in the eye with a sharp stick" [19]. He restated this position during the meeting with the President when he warned against nominating either Brown or Owen [20]. Again, Reid and Leahy offered the names of judges Sotomayor, Prado and Hinojosa [21]. Again, Bush did not offer any names of his own to discuss. On Thursday, September 22, Roberts' nomination was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a bipartisan vote of 13-5.

During a press conference on Monday, September 26, Bush implied that his next nominee would be either a woman or a minority. In making his decision concerning O'Connor's replacement, he said he would keep in mind that, "diversity is one of the strengths of the country" [22]. John Roberts was confirmed by the Senate on Thursday, September 29, by a vote of 78-22 and was sworn in both privately and publicly later the same day.

During the evening of Sunday, October 2, John Fund, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, announced on the radio show of blogger Matt Drudge that his sources had told him that the nominee would be moderate Hispanic Judge Consuelo M. Callahan of the Ninth Circuit. The website ConfirmThem.com [23], however, reported on the same evening that the selection had been made in favor of conservative Fourth Circuit Judge Karen J. Williams. The next morning (on Monday, October 3), President Bush unexpectedly chose little-known White House Counsel Harriet Miers to be O'Connor's replacement on the court.

[edit] Harriet Miers nomination

President Bush introducing withdrawn nominee Harriet Miers.
Enlarge
President Bush introducing withdrawn nominee Harriet Miers.

There was immediate and intense opposition to Miers' nomination, primarily from conservative Republicans. Principal complaints included:

  • That her credentials under objective standards were not sufficient to qualify her for the position.
  • That her nomination was the result of political cronyism. Because her legal career did not compare to those of other possible conservative female candidates (like federal appellate judges Edith Jones, Karen J. Williams, Priscilla Owen, and Janice Rogers Brown), many thought that President Bush probably nominated Miers for her personal loyalty to him rather than for her qualifications.

On the morning of Thursday, October 27, 2005, President Bush "reluctantly" accepted Miers's request to withdraw her nomination.

[edit] Samuel Alito nomination

Associate Justice Samuel Alito acknowledges his nomination on October 31, 2005, with President Bush looking on.
Enlarge
Associate Justice Samuel Alito acknowledges his nomination on October 31, 2005, with President Bush looking on.

Bush moved quickly to find an alternative nominee to Miers, a nominee who would have both the credentials that Miers lacked and a conservative judicial philosophy that could be documented. On the morning of Monday, October 31, Bush announced the nomination of well-known conservative Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., a fifteen year veteran of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Alito's confirmation hearing was held from Monday, January 9, 2006, to Friday, January 13. On Tuesday, January 24, his nomination was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 party line vote. Debate on the nomination began in the full Senate on Wednesday, January 25. Despite a last minute effort by Democrat Senator John Kerry to filibuster [24], a cloture vote to end debate passed 72-25 on Monday, January 30. On the morning of Tuesday, January 31, Alito was confirmed to the Supreme Court by a vote of 58-42. He was sworn in privately later that same day. The next day, he was publicly sworn in.

[edit] The filibuster revisited

In April of 2006, Senate Republicans began pushing for the confirmation of two controversial conservative court of appeals nominees who had not been included in the Gang of 14 deal of 2005, district court judge Terrence Boyle and White House aide Brett Kavanaugh [25]. Boyle had been first nominated to the Fourth Circuit in 2001 and Kavanaugh to the D.C. Circuit in 2003. Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid immediately expressed concern over both nominees [26] [27], threatening to possibly filibuster each one. On May 3, 2006, the seven Democrat members of the Gang of 14 wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee requesting a second hearing for Kavanaugh [28]. That request was granted the next day [29]. On Tuesday, May 9, Kavanaugh appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his second hearing. Later that same day, the Gang of 14 met to discuss his nomination as well as the nomination of Boyle which had become embroiled in a debate concerning Boyle's failure to recuse himself in several cases. After the meeting, South Carolina senator Lindsay Graham declared that he saw no "extraordinary circumstances" concerning Kavanaugh's nomination. However, several Republican members of the "Gang" refused to address the status of Boyle. The Democrat members said they would request a second hearing for Boyle like they had done earlier for Kavanaugh [30]. On Thursday, May 11, Kavanaugh was voted out of committee on a party line vote of 10-8 [31]. Two weeks later on Thursday, May 25, cloture was invoked on Kavanaugh by a vote of 67-30 with all but two members of the Gang of 14 voting to end debate [32]. The next day, Kavanaugh was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit by a vote of 57-36 [33].

Before the Boyle nomination could be addressed, a controversy arose about the nomination of William "Jim" Haynes, the general counsel of the Department of Defense, to be an appellate judge on the Fourth Circuit. When it was revealed that Republican senator Graham might be holding up Haynes's nomination in committee [34] due to concerns about his participation in the formulation and implementation of the torture guidelines suggested by the Bybee memo, conservative leaders began a push to get Haynes confirmed [35]. Graham responded to his critics with a letter [36]. Eventually, Haynes was granted a second hearing like Kavanaugh had been before him. Two days after the July 11 hearing, the Gang met to discuss Haynes' nomination. Their initial response did not seem positive [37].

Before any further action could be taken on Haynes, however, his nomination (as well as those of four other controversial appellate nominees including Boyle and previously filibustered nominee William Myers) was returned to the White House according to Senate rules on August 3, 2006 in advance of the annual August recess of Congress. When the Senate returned in September, it was only for a short period before a break for the 2006 midterm election. Although Haynes, Boyle and Myers were renominated, again no action was taken on them in the Senate Judiciary Committee before the break, and their nominations were sent back a second time to the White House on September 29 [38].

On November 7, 2006, the Democrats were able to retake control of the Senate by a 51-49 majority. Despite this fact, President Bush soon after renominated the six candidates whose nominations had been sent back to him in September. The judiciary committee chairman, Senator Specter, however, said that he would not process these controversial nominees during the lame duck session of the 109th Congress [39]. Because of this, the need for the Gang of 14 is now greatly diminished. As the new majority in the 110th Congress, the Democrats can easily block any conservative judicial nominee they wish without resorting to the filibuster. Conservative appellate nominees can be blocked in committee, and conservative nominees to the Supreme Court can be voted down in the full Senate.

[edit] Names frequently mentioned

Following is a list of individuals that have been mentioned in various news accounts as the most likely potential nominees for a Bush appointment:

[edit] United States Courts of Appeals

Courts of Appeals

[edit] United States Senators

[edit] Executive branch officials

[edit] Other backgrounds

Note that candidates with a higher number for news reports have been mentioned more recently.

[edit] References

  1. Green, Frank (22 November 2004). 4th Circuit's Luttig said potential high-court pick (Times-Dispatch)
  2. Woellert, Lorraine (22 November 2004) What The New Court Will Look Like (Business Week)
  3. www.cleveland.com/news Article on "Potential Supreme Court Nominees" (Cleveland Plain Dealer)
  4. High Court Prospects Emerging
  5. CNN discussion (CNN)
  6. Possible Bush Nominees
  7. Odds on Supreme Court Appointments
  8. The Supreme Court Shortlist: The views of the likely candidates to succeed Rehnquist (MSN)
  9. Highest court buzzing
  10. O'Connor's decision to retire sets off nomination, confirmation battles (MSNBC)
  11. Speculators eye Cornyn for Supreme Court post
  12. Frist, Reid Talk Potential Court Nominees (Washington Post)
  13. "Supreme Court: Likely candidates" (BBC)
  14. Justice O'Connor retires (Washington Post)
  15. Possible Successors (New York Times)
  16. Justice O’Connor to retire (Chicago Tribune)
  17. Fla. Justice Gets Backing for U.S. Supreme Court Seat
  18. Sources: Senators suggest court candidates (CNN)
  19. Update: Bush to announce Supreme Court nominee in prime-time TV appearance (The San Diego Union Tribune)
  20. Bush Nominates Federal Judge Roberts (ABC News)
  21. Bush Gets Chance to Name Chief Justice, (ABC News)
  22. Who will be the next Chief justice? (CNN)
  23. Bush vows to replace Rehnquist quickly (World Peace Herald)
  24. White House Said to Shift List (New York Times)
  25. Justice Dinh {Wall Street Journall)
  26. Roberts Seen as a Template to Follow after Miers (LA Times)
  27. Bush pulls plug on Miers: New court choice imminent (Chicago Tribune)
  28. Bush heads to Camp David to ponder nominee (AP)
  29. Bush's Court Choice Ends Bid (NY Times)
  30. Bush to Look to Roberts' Model in New Court Pick (Boston Globe)
  31. Washington Whispers (U.S. News & World Report)

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/s/Bush_Supreme_Court_candidates_dced.html"