O'connor and the 2005 Term

[JFN]

At 12:14 PM -0400 10/27/05, JMHACLJ at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 10/27/2005 11:29:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
>SLevinson at law.utexas.edu writes:
>
>In case it's necessary to say, I take no pleasure in Ms. Meirs 
>withdrawal, especially given recent disclosures that suggest that 
>she is indeed capable of thinking for herself.
>
>Some had never doubted her ability to think for herself. 
>Nonetheless, the suggestion that some recent disclosure had 
>evidenced this character trait gives me pause, and I ask, without 
>any right to answer, what recent revelations carried this water for 
>you?
>

Yesterday's Washington Post reported on a 1993 speech in which she 
argued that issues marked by religious division should be left to 
"self-determination" rather than government, another in which she 
praised Ruth Ginsburg's nomination by Clinton, and still another in 
which she predicted the eventual election of a woman president or 
vice-president and pointed to Texas Gov. Ann Richards as a good 
possibility. In the aftermath, Concerned Women for America called for 
her withdrawal, the Family Research Council expressed concern that 
her views "lean toward judicial activism," Lawrence Leo reportedly 
told the White House he wanted to go back to his job at the 
Federalist Society, and one conservative Republican on the Judiciary 
Committee reportedly advised the White House to withdraw the 
nomination.

Is it mistaken to view this situation as unprecedented? Nominees have 
been rejected on ideological grounds -- arguably Fortas, certainly 
Bork -- because their ideological commitment could be portrayed as 
political bias or judicial activism. But has any nominee ever been 
rejected or withdrawn because he wasn't sufficiently committed to the 
liberal or conservative orthodoxy of the President's own party?

John Noble