Official ATL Endorsement: Judge O’Scannlain for Attorney General
We linked to this interesting MSNBC article, about possible replacements for outgoing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in Morning Docket.
We’d now like to link to it again, and draw your attention to the very end of the article. Doug Kmiec, a top Justice Department official in the Reagan and Bush I administrations, is quoted as follows:
“[T]he president might be well advised to pick a senior court of appeals judge appointed by Reagan; perhaps, Diarmuid O’Scannlain of the Ninth Circuit, Kenneth Ripple of the Seventh Circuit, or Edith Jones of the Fifth.”[Kmiec] said, “The integrity of these individuals is unquestioned; by virtue of judicial office, they have been freed of partisanship for some time, yet, by virtue of appointment, would be acceptable to the base of the President’s party.”
Judge O’Scannlain for Attorney General? What a fabulous idea!
Having clerked for Judge O’Scannlain, we’re admittedly biased. As we previously wrote:
During two decades of distiinguished service, Judge O’Scannlain has established himself as a shining star in the federal judicial firmament. We had the honor and pleasure of clerking for Judge O’Scannlain during the 1999-2000 judicial year. He was a wonderful boss to us and our co-clerks, and he continues to be a great mentor and friend to this day. (He’s also quite handsome, in a Paul Newman sort of way; see photo at right.)
But you don’t need to be a former O’Scannlain clerk to recognize the soundness of Kmiec’s reasoning. (As for the other two judges Kmiec mentions, we’re not that familiar with Judge Ripple. Judge Jones, while diva-licious, she might be a tough sell to a Senate controlled by the Democrats.)
So we hereby issue this official ATL endorsement: Judge O’Scannlain for Attorney General!
(Psst, Nixon Peabody peeps: Can you do up a theme song?)
Senate confirmation hearings promise drama [MSNBC]
(33) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
Why would anybody leave an Article III appointment just to spend 16 months as a lame duck's AG?
second.
Lat, why do you speak of yourself in the plural? ("we")
Doesn’t the 9th Circuit have a (deserved or undeserved) certain reputation with the “Republican Party base” that might be seen as “controversial” in view of the ultra-conservative 9th Circuit bashers?
5:03: The 9th does have that reputation (deserved, IMO), but Judge O'Scannlain does not.
Maybe he could use those 16 months to implement his pet-circuit-split project.
Dammit, I was with you until you mentioned Kmiec, who is an utterly boring and predictable right-wing mouthpiece. It isn't the right-wing I have a problem with, but the absolute predictability of everything that drips from his mouth. I bet he requires press releases or talking points for pillow talk.
"[T]he president might be well advised to pick a senior court of appeals judge appointed by Reagan; perhaps, Diarmuid O’Scannlain of the Ninth Circuit, Kenneth Ripple of the Seventh Circuit, or Edith Jones of the Fifth."
Now where the hell is Bush supposed to get good advice from? Has anyone giving him advise ever shown the ability to "well-advise" the president? The next AG will probably be someone who wrote a crazy memo, like Bybee or Thompson, and will almost certainly be someone gung-ho about the unitary executive theory.
5:09:
However, will the "Conservatives" make that distinction?
It seems me the eye-rolling (and mind closing) will begin with the words “9th Circuit”, just as when they hear the words “from San Francisco”.
I am surprised that Joe Russoniello has not been mentioned as a possible candidate.
Hopefully we won’t wind up with another Bush crony-hack.
Last, I agree with the comment “why would anyone want to leave a lifetime federal judgeship for a 16 month stint” as AG in a sinking ship administration?
How about judge Randolph of the DC Circuit? He's not merely a senior circuit judge, he's one who's been very friendly to administration arguments on Gitmo and the like (which would seem an essential qualification).
No way Bush reaches out to a sitting Article III judge that he doesn't have the clout to replace. He knows it would just open a seat for his Democratic successor to fill (see CA4).
The last thing he wants to do is strip lifetime Republican appointees of their tenure at this point in his presidency.
5:03/5:44:
Your frequent use of quotation marks does not make your observations any less "dumb" or your analysis less "trite" and "superficial."
I agree 5:56. Replacing an Art III judge is too much of a pain.
"Hopefully we won’t wind up with another Bush crony-hack. "
Of COURSE we're going to end up with another Bush crony-hack. Haven't you learned anything in the last 7 years?
Senior CoA judges are already "retired" and have been replaced. That's why they make good choices to appoint as AG.
frankly i think he looks more like an elderly stephen colbert
5:51, Judge Randolph is not senior; he is an active judge.
Lat, you're a suck-up. And if you really like your judge so much, why would you want him to become Attorney General?
How about Judge Luttig, the General Counsel at Boeing? I think he's a good choice for the President.
"I am surprised that Joe Russoniello has not been mentioned as a possible candidate."
Who?
none of the three judges mentioned by MSNBC are "senior" in the formal sense (i.e. none have left "active" service and taken a reduced case load). the reference to senior simply is they have been on the bench for some time. sort of confusing though...
If that means he will no longer sit on 9th Circuit panels, I'm all for it.
6:12,
That's partially true, but on the other hand, a senior judge who is still hearing cases is a voice on the court that would be lost if appointed to another position. (I'm assuming, without having researched the question, that a senior judge, despite being technically retired, would be unable to continue participating in the work of the judiciary if he took a position in the executive branch). Even though his seat on the court has already been filled, there would still be a cost associated with removing him from the bench for a relatively short-term executive appointment.
Interesting issue, though-- can a senior judge who is appointed to executive office return to hearing cases after he leaves that office? (Moot point, of course, if none of the judges in question are actually senior).
Lifetime tenure on the COA vs. AG for not enough time to make any real changes before being replaced by the inevitable Democrat who follows Bush --- need I really make a snide answer?
When has Bush ever followed up the resignation of a true believer neocon politically loyal puke with someone more palatable to the masses? Maybe Rummy w/ Gates? This assumes that Bush cares whether he's popular or not. I'd expect him to spend the last of his time doing whaever he hell he feels like doing regardless of what the people want. He on a DIVINE MISSION for God's sake. Unless enough Republicans defect to threaten his power to veto, he will keep on answering criticism with gratuitous displays of his brown-hole.
Doosh-baiig-zuh.
O'Scannlain for AG! Hey, wait. Can I nominate my judge?
Okay, hell, O'Scannlain is a great freaking judge (other than his not hiring me), but for bogs sake...
Once, when the Judge I clerked for was approached at a local restaurant by some muckity-muck, encouraging him to run for the Senate (this being a smallish state), the Judge remarked "I would run for the Senate, except for three things: I can't win, I can't raise the money, and I don't want the job."
Isn't Russoniello the former USA in SF that kept getting mentioned as a recycled candidate to fill the USA vacancy in SF?
Any one of those judges would be crazy to leave their Article III tenured positions to be AG to Bush, a move that will inevitably seem like a black mark on their name even if they are tried & true conservatives.
Maybe Clement just rides out the term as acting AG . . . which brings me to Lat's forthcoming post
[My Judge/professor/mother/crush] for Acting SG!
"I'm assuming, without having researched the question, that a senior judge, despite being technically retired, would be unable to continue participating in the work of the judiciary if he took a position in the executive branch"
Why should that be? I can think of at least one person who was, simultaneously, a Cabinet-level secretary and a Supreme Court justice. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits (although I suppose there might have been a statute passed between 1801 and today).
"Any one of those judges would be crazy to leave their Article III tenured positions to be [Cabinet secretaries] to Bush"
Chertoff sets the precedent. Although I suppose you could argue that he's crazy.
No, Chertoff is stupid. See Katrina.
Um, I don't know what he was five years ago, but today he's an intellectually lazy right-winger who makes his decisions by signing his name next to whichever republican is sitting on his panel. I mean, I guess he's not renditioning people or letting them drown in floods, but we can probably do better ....
Anyone who uses "Edith Jones" and "freed of partisanship" in the same breath is a moron.