S.W.A.G. about John Robert's confirmation
I don't hear the term S.W.A.G (Sophisticated Wild Ass Guess) much these days, there's probably a new slang word for it, and no one's ever accused me of keeping up with what's "new". Oh, and just in case a humor-impaired individual is reading this, the "sophisticated" part is sarcasm.
I am now about to make a S.W.A.G. (or two):
Based on nothing whatsoever, I'm classifying John C. Roberts, Jr. as a "sacrificial lamb" nominee, because I think the Democrats are going to crucify him... or at least try very, very hard to do so.
After his demise, a nominee with a more moderate view on Roe (the actual first choice) will be put forth and easily confirmed.
The alternative S.W.A.G. is that the Democrats will not too strongly oppose Roberts, saving the big protest for Rehnquist's presumably upcoming retirement announcement.(Have I sufficiently covered my bets?)
I'll be updating this post periodically with predictions, analysis, and commentary from people who actually know about stuff like this, as it becomes available:
Crescat Sententia: "I'm pleased to see that the President has nominated someone who is thought stone cold brilliant in John Roberts."
Confirm Them: "...the White House wanted to keep the pledge to conservatives, have someone who Bush knows, and support Executive powers. Roberts was the only one to fit the bill."
Bench Memos (Whelan): "[President Bush] has fulfilled his promise to nominate someone who has excellent credentials and who understands the role of the judiciary in our constitutional republic."
Bench Memos (Adler): "...he is close to the Platonic ideal of what a Supreme Court nominee should be."
Bench Memos (Lopez): Democrats have "the obstacle of having fairly recently put him through the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation deal fairly recently for his D.C. Circuit seat — May 2003."
The American Mind (via Instapundit, who hasn't yet posted his own thoughts): "Not since "freedom fries" were served in the House cafeteria will the fried food play such a large role on Capitol Hill."
Juan Non-Volokh explains why Roberts may not be anti-Roe.
Instapundit says Lieberman's inclusion of Roberts in a list of nominees that "could be considered with sparking a talk-athon" suggests a filibuster is unlikely.
UPDATE: President lays down the challenge by noting that the confirmations of the last two confirmations prove the process can be done in a timely manner. NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez noted that average was 58 days from nomination to confirmation.
Patrick Leahy notes that since the job is different, Roberts' confirmation to the D.C. Circuit isn't relevant to a Supreme Court confirmation.
Chuck Schumer: "It's a whole new ballgame."
Shakespeare's Sister: "...he doesn't look like my worst nightmare."
More:
Ambivablog: "Well, here goes. Who really believed Bush would do anything else?"
Ann Althouse in in CourtTV Chat right now - 8:44 pm CDT
Prof. Althouse thinks Roberts will take a position on "penumbras of rights of an evolving Constitution" that will protect him from attacks on abortion issue. And that his credentials are so strong, the only thing the Democrats have to disagree with is ideology. Hmm... I think that will be enough for them. I hope she's right and I'm wrong. (There's a real good chance of that. --ed.)
My question hasn't come up in the queue - Do you think that Roberts' "reliable conservatism" will push Kennedy to be more consistently "liberal"? (Sounds like I'm already discounting my S.W.A.G. that he won't be confirmed, doesn't it?)
I haven't participated in this kind of "chat" in years. It seems very antiquated and slow, but it's really not. It's going just as fast as anyone could be expected to type.
She notes the Democrats would look awfully follish filibustering this, they would seem like political hacks.
Hmmm... I don't think that will stop some of them.
In response to my question: "If you remove a moderate, it creates a vaccuum that pulls someone else into the middle. So, yes, I do think it will happen and it will be Kennedy.
More UPDATES:
kos:
Tonight's announcement, and the rash of false leaks throughout the day, meant Rove got a reprieve from the steady stream of damaging stories about his involvement in the illegal outing of an undercover CIA agent.
So the administration had to act quick, and nominated Roberts to the high court.
The future of the Supreme Court is at stake, and these guys will even truncate that process for short-term political gain. Par for the course.
Related Posts (on one page):
- The Roberts Irony
- That little Roberts problem
- S.W.A.G. about John Robert's confirmation
