Legalities
Life, Politics and the Law From ABC News Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg
Jan Crawford Greenburg is a correspondent for ABC News' bureau in Washington DC. She covers politics, the Supreme Court and provides legal analysis for ABC News. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago's law school and is a member of the New York bar.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
A Hat Trick?
June 01, 2007 3:50 PM
President Bush’s nominees to the Supreme Court have made their presence felt in some high-profile cases in the last month or so—and the White House is developing a short list of possible contenders if Bush were to get a third pick to join them.
Bush met with top advisers last month and discussed possible nominees if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs, according to sources close to the selection process. He told White House Counsel Fred Fielding and other administration lawyers that he wanted to nominate a woman or minority to the Court, and his legal team has narrowed its focus to a half-dozen contenders, sources said.
Most of them have been well-vetted by the White House, which conducted extensive background checks and interviews in 2005, when it was searching for replacements for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
No one expects a retirement, but the White House is going to be ready.
Here’s the story.
June 1, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (6)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I'm glad to see Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and Diane Sykes still atop the list. Those three, in that order, would be great. Nobody will rally the base to the same heights of intensity like Janice Rogers Brown. That's why I think she would get the nomination and why I think she eventually would be confirmed -- after a very entertaining and instructive battle-royal with the liberal forces.
I can see a scenario where Justice Stevens *might* want to step down this year. It's the play-it safe scenario. The worst case scenario for him would be not to retire until after the 2008 election and then have both a conservative Republican (Thompson or Romney) win the Presidency and the Republicans retake the senate. Both of those are more likely than many people now realize. If that does happen, then any Supreme Court nominees from that new administration will *certainly* be strong conservatives. But if Justice Stevens retires now, his replacement will be confirmed by a democratic senate. That *might* make a difference in how conservative his replacement is and that then *might* be reason enough for him to retire at the end of this term.
Posted by: Joe | Jun 1, 2007 5:25:09 PM
This is the best place to get good information and opinions about the Supreme Court. Here's my dark horse pick: Judge Emilio Garza of the Fifth Circuit.
Posted by: DRJ | Jun 1, 2007 11:10:45 PM
Re. the possibility of a JRB nomination:
Watching the Democrats try to reject
-- such an articulate, well-qualified nominee;
-- with such an inspiring personal story;
-- who represents the ultimate Democratic "diversity" double-whammy, as a black woman...
...would be quite a sight...especially during primary season...even more especially because she would be replacing a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.
Particularly entertaining to watch would be the junior Senators from New York and Illinois.
Posted by: Marshall | Jun 2, 2007 1:51:11 AM
I read yesterday there have been thirteen 5-4 decisions this term (with more expected later this last month). Justice Kennedy (and only Justice Kennedy) has been in the majority on each of the thirteen. As Jan would say, he's clearly being pulled back and forth between the Roberts and Alito poles of the Court.
Looking for the bright side of the slim chances of a retirement this term . . . If there isn't another retirement under Bush, that might not be a bad thing afterall. It certainly would make the 2008 election important to social conservatives. They are so close to getting what they have been working toward for several decades. Many of them are single issue voters (abortion and the Court is their single issue), and if they are this close to their goal and they know it all depends on the 2008 election, they may go all out in a way they've never gone all out before. That effort may be what gives the Republicans the 2008 election, both for the Presidency and the Senate. Then Janice Rogers Brown and maybe even a couple of more strong conservatives would end up on the Court under eight years of Thompson or Romney.
Of course on the flip side if they lose, there's also the dreadful prospects of who Hillary would nominate (which is why so many social conservatives would go to the polls).
Posted by: Joe | Jun 3, 2007 7:30:48 PM
Ms. Greenburg, Do you do any public speaking? I would like to discuss our Bench-Bar Conference with you.
Posted by: Dan | Jun 20, 2007 12:46:27 PM
After reading this story..which is a good piece of news...it still takes me back abit to wonder whether or not the individual background checks trully amount to as much as it is laid out to be...I would like to know that all follow the ten commandments without or with God, since everyone has a constitution to follow in our country, secondly, with what has happened in the good interest of the party..so on...how can we believe in a background check on slections, didn't we do that with the politicians now being screened and dis engaged throughout the country...especially in Washington now..What are we to believe...I was never a skeptic but after living amongst thieves and drug infestation, I am very skeptical as to the ongoing efforts to investigate truth and figures picked by the hired men who have displayed lack of integrity, credibility...interesting choices we now have...we can do better than this... if anyone who is under the concensus that it is ok to seek vengeance in my book, to go into war the way we have, to be placed in harm for the wrong committed does not warrant individuals or individual to be recommending anyone for any office...Apache
Posted by: Apachecheynne | Jul 10, 2007 7:26:41 PM
Post a comment
