O'connor and the 2005 Term
cornell at mail.wsu.edu
Thu Oct 27 10:30:12 PDT 2005
Would it be wrong to think that the actions of the independent
counsel tomorrow may well shape the White House strategy in selecting
the next nominee? If Libby and Rove are indicted and there is a
suggestion that the investigation may continue up the lader to the
VP, etc., wouldn't it be strategically wise to pick a fight in the
Senate by nominating someone like Brown, Jones, or Luttig, and to
distract attention away from the White House investigations. If, on
the other hand, the special counsel doesn't indict, or indicts only
Libby, then the strategy might favor a consensual candidate such as
McConnell or Clement.
At 10:09 AM 10/27/2005, Earl Maltz wrote:
>Waiting for March 1 creates a variety of political problems. One of
>the problems is that Bush has created a situation in which he may
>very need at least two more nominations to fill the seat. The first
>would satisfy his conservative base, but then by killed by a long
>filibuster by the Democrats. The second might then be an Edith
>Clement type, who (like Anthony Kennedy) would be accepted by both
>sides out of pure exhaustion. The problem is that, assuming a long
>filibuster of the first nomination, if he began on March 1, Bush
>might not have time for a second nomination prior to the November
>elections, in which the Democrats might well retake the Senate.
>This administration clearly wins the Warren G. Harding-Calvin
>Coolidge award for singular ineptitude.
>At 11:41 AM 10/27/2005 -0500, Sandy Levinson wrote:
>>I believe that both were succeeding dead justices, Black and Harlan
>>(or, if still living, too debilitated to serve). And, though I'm
>>ready to and corrected, I don't think that H or B had participated
>>in any cases. What will happen, e.g., if SDO provides the 5th vote
>>in the Oregon case. Will the SC majority try to rush it out? Will
>>a dissenter develop a slow pen or broken computer. Will casesBe
>>dismissed as improvidently granted because the newcomer would not
>>have provided SDO's 4th vote?
>>I stand by my previous posting. It's time for a cooling off period.
>>- Sanford Levinson
>>(Sent from a Blackberry)
>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
>>as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
>>that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members
>>can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
>as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that
>are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
>(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
More information about the Conlawprof