The Boy Who Cried Wolf Justice Stevens Is Retiring
Rumors that Justice John Paul Stevens is about to step down from the Supreme Court are a recurring feature of the legal gossip landscape. As we previously observed, JPS retirement rumors "return each spring, with the birds and the flowers."
But hey, we're good sports, so we'll blog about them. 'Cause one of these days, they might actually turn out to be true -- and we wouldn't want to be caught flat-footed. (Our personal view, though, is that Justice Stevens will leave the Court as the late Chief Justice Rehnquist did -- through death, not retirement.)
Anyway, here's the latest gossip. Per Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, and an active participant in judicial confirmation battles:
For the past several weeks, there has been a rumor circulating among high-level officials in Washington, D.C., that a member of the U.S. Supreme Court has received grave medical news and will announce his or her retirement by year’s end. While such rumors are not unusual in the nation’s capital, this one comes from credible sources. Additionally, a less credible but still noteworthy post last week at the liberal Democratic Underground blog says, “Send your good vibes to Justice Stevens. I just got off the phone with a friend of his family and right now he is very ill and at 86 years old that is not good.”
Rushton's rumor was picked up over at Confirm Them.
If Justice Stevens does resign from the Court, who might fill his robes? U.S. News's Washington Whispers column offers this intelligence:
President Bush isn't looking very far for his next conservative pick to the U.S. Supreme Court: His top two candidates work just 12 blocks away in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Insiders say Judge Janice Rogers Brown, appointed in June 2005, tops the list, followed by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, appointed in May.Also up: Peter Keisler, whose nomination to the D.C. court is pending. So there's no vacancy, you say? With apologies to Justice John Paul Stevens, 86, it's his seat they hope to fill.
As ATL readers know, we love ourselves some Janice Rogers Brown. But would this outspoken, conservative judicial diva be able to make it through a Democrat-controlled Senate? The same goes for Brett Kavanaugh, whom Senator Chuck Schumer once described as "the Zelig of young Republican lawyers."
So we'd be interested in your views on a question that a (clearly conservative) reader sent to us earlier today:
How about a piece on SCOTUS candidates Bush could get through the Senate now that it's controlled by Communists?
(Now now, dear reader, conservatives are trying to play NICE with Nancy Pelosi and her pals. No name calling.)
One obvious response: Maureen Mahoney (above right). We previously wrote about Mahoney in great detail over here. We expressed concerns over whether she would be perceived as conservative enough to secure the nomination. But in a Senate controlled by Democrats, being a moderate conservative -- as opposed to a hardline one -- would be a plus.
Thoughts?
Update: Lots of interesting names in the comments.
The Rumor About John Paul Stevens [Human Events]
Talking About Judge Brown [Confirm Them]
Another Reason to Go GOP [Confirm Them]
Washington Whispers [U.S. News and World Report]
Maureen Mahoney: "The Female John Roberts"? [Underneath Their Robes]
Comments
If Mahoney were to be nominated and approved, would she be the first mormon justice to serve on the supreme's?
Posted by: Anon | November 9, 2006 07:39 PM
Yes and no. If a Mormon were nominated and approved he or she would be the first on the Court. That being said, I'm pretty sure Maureen Mahoney is not Mormon.
Posted by: nsc | November 9, 2006 08:57 PM
P.S. See the link to UTR: http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/09/wheres_the_scot.html
She's Catholic.
Posted by: nsc | November 9, 2006 08:59 PM
Another Catholic? Are we forming a Supreme Court or a College of Cardinals?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2006 09:39 PM
Perhaps the original comment (7:39 PM) had some typos. I'll edit:
"If Mahoney were to be nominated and approved, and she converted to Mormonism, would she be the first [M]ormon [J]ustice to serve on the [S]upreme[s]?"
Now that the Senate will be controlled by communists...
1. It seems like an opportune time to revive the "who could get 100 votes" discussion the VC had a while back.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_22-2005_05_28.shtml#1116976148 (see also the related posts links)
2. On June 10, 2003, Senator Schumer (D-NY-smack-talkin'-irritant-extraordinaire) gave GWB a list of candidates for a Supreme Court vacancy who are either Republicans or nominated by Republican nominees and who, in his opinion, would get 100 votes
http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01772.html
(names are Arlen Specter, Ann Williams (CA7), Edward Prado (CA5), Michael Muksaey (then-SDNY, now Patterson Belknap), and Stanley Marcus (CA11)).
3. Perhaps if Judge Luttig persuades Boeing to design a special "abortion shuttle" plane to shuttle women out of South Dakota, he'll get some votes from the other side of the aisle.
4. Brown'll never get confirmed, the Dems got a lot of mileage out of Kavanaugh's "inexperience," and Keisler's too young.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2006 09:41 PM
How about Judge Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit)?
He's one of the Elect, and a judicial superhottie. Just like John Roberts!
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2006 09:55 PM
Schumer's list is hilarious.
Posted by: anon y. mouse | November 9, 2006 09:55 PM
Why is Schumer's list hilarious?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2006 10:16 PM
Neil Gorsuch, just confirmed to the Tenth Circuit, is SCOTUS material. But he's a little young -- born 1967.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/gorsuchresume.htm
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2006 10:19 PM
Speaking of the 10th Circuit, why not Judge Jerome Holmes?
Conservative, African-American, great credentials, young but not too young:
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/07/yo_holmes_the_tenth_circuits_n_1.php
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2006 10:24 PM
MY TOP PICK: Miguel Estrada. It's about time the Supreme Court had a Latino justice - and this guy is amazingly qualified. He has great experience: public sector/private sector, trial/appellate, civil/criminal.
The only problem is convincing him to do it - apparently he's reluctant. Conservatives need to draft him, even if it takes arm twisting.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2006 10:35 PM
Bush will be under pressure to pick a woman. That's why Janice Rogers Brown is so appealing. But there are other options:
1. Consuelo Callahan (9th Circuit)
2. Edith Brown Clement (5th Circuit - stalking horse for Roberts nomination)
3. Carolyn Kuhl (withdrawn 9th Circuit nominee, unfairly cast as arch-conservative)
4. Diane Sykes (7th Circuit)
Posted by: Court Watcher | November 9, 2006 10:42 PM
Yet another 10th Circuit guy: Michael McConnell.
Brilliant former law professor, conservative, but not an ideological hack. Could totally get confirmed.
When he was confirmed for the Tenth Circuit, the Dems loved him. He "gives great hearing" -- he actually answers the senators' questions, honestly and intelligently.
Posted by: western lawyer | November 9, 2006 10:45 PM
Callahan and Clement are not of SCOTUS caliber. Kuhl and Sykes might be, but they'd never get confirmed: too ideological (or perceived as too ideoloigcal, which is just as bad).
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2006 10:48 PM
10:35 anonymous, you're an idiot.
1. Why do you think he'd get confirmed?
2. (Sarcasm) Why do you suppose he's "reluctant"?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2006 11:07 PM
What about Paul Clement? He's young, has the intellectual horsepower, and has won some dems over with his work in the SG's office.
Posted by: Anony | November 10, 2006 03:06 AM
What about Judge Gibbons from the 6th Circuit? I think President Bush raised her to her current seat in 2002; President Reagan had put her on the District Court. To me, she'd seem to have the right age, ideology and temperment for the current situation.
Posted by: armand | November 10, 2006 03:39 AM
10:16pm: Schumer's list is hilarious because the people he lists would mostly vote with the liberals. Why on earth would Bush a lefty?
Posted by: Anon Y, Mouse | November 10, 2006 06:28 AM
More reasons that Schumer's list is a joke:
(1) there's nothing particularly interesting about Williams, Prado, or Marcus as jurists (except for the ethnicities of the first two);
(2) Williams and Marcus were Clinton nominees (to their circuit court posts); and
(3) Specter and Mukasey are WAY too old (Specter's in his 70s, Mukasey 65+).
Posted by: Anonymous | November 10, 2006 07:05 AM
having appeared before MArcus on several occasions, I can say he is a conservative, and a very good judge.
Posted by: Percuriam | November 10, 2006 11:35 AM
Sutton would be a phenomenal choice. Well-respected on the 6th Circuit and has done some great work there.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 10, 2006 06:35 PM
I would imagine Attorney General Gonzalez would get serious consideration. His nomination would likely have been torpedoed by conservatives when Republicans held the Senate (a la Harriet Miers) because social conservatives have questions about him from his time on the Texas Supreme Court (to which Bush appointed him). However, it is at least in the realm of possibility that the Democrats would be willing to forgo a grueling confirmation hearing on executive power in order to encourage the nomination of someone who isn't really all that conservative on a broad spectrum of legal issues (they almost certainly would have acquiesced to such an arrangement had Gonzales been nominated instead of, say, Alito).
Posted by: Anonymous | November 13, 2006 10:18 PM
I would imagine Attorney General Gonzalez would get serious consideration. His nomination would likely have been torpedoed by conservatives when Republicans held the Senate (a la Harriet Miers) because social conservatives have questions about him from his time on the Texas Supreme Court (to which Bush appointed him). However, it is at least in the realm of possibility that the Democrats would be willing to forgo a grueling confirmation hearing on executive power in order to encourage the nomination of someone who isn't really all that conservative on a broad spectrum of legal issues (they almost certainly would have acquiesced to such an arrangement had Gonzales been nominated instead of, say, Alito).
Posted by: Anonymous | November 13, 2006 10:19 PM