« Considering juvenile relevant conduct | Main | Still more on Libby's plea and sentencing dynamics »
October 30, 2005
Is it Alito, Luttig or ... Brown?
Continuing the buzz that emerged on Friday, there is a lot of talk in the newspapers and the blogosphere about Sam Alito and Michael Luttig as the two front-runners for a SCOTUS nomination. The blogosphere buzz around these two folks is especially interesting over at confirmthem and this post at UTR; Lyle Denniston here at SCOTUSblog suggests we might be getting a nominee within the next 24 hours.
Article 3 Groupie speculates that all the Alito buzz may be a head fake on the way to a Luttig nomination. But I have a different theory: Could all the Alito and Luttig buzz be a misdirection on the way to the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown?
This article reports that President Bush "and First Lady Laura Bush were scheduled to participate in a wreath-laying ceremony this evening honoring late civil rights activist Rosa Parks." Wouldn't it be an incredible moment of political theater and strategy to announce the SCOTUS nomination of Brown at this event? The President could describe Brown as the judicial equivalent of Rosa Parks, and framing the nomination in such terms would, I think, greatly impact the political dynamics and debate surrounding this nomination.
A few related posts:
- Serious Justice Alito buzz
- The SCOTUS name game
- Miers is out, who's next?
- A criminal law perspective on Janice Rogers Brown
- Will the next SCOTUS nominee have any criminal law background?
- Does SCOTUS need a trial judge?
UPDATE: Much to the relief of Ann Althouse and A3G, no SCOTUS nominee announcement on Sunday night. And I am pleasantly surprised that Ann and A3G and many commentors view the honoring of the historic Rosa Parks as an event that should be above politics. Now only if we could get everyone to think that way about the naming of a Supreme Court Justice....
October 30, 2005 at 10:01 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200d8345a3bb569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is it Alito, Luttig or ... Brown?:
» Capitol Honors OK'd For Rosa Parks from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
Congress has approved a resolution allowing Rosa Parks to lie in honor at the Rotunda in the U.S. Ca [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 30, 2005 8:04:36 PM
» Capitol Honors OK'd For Rosa Parks from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
Congress has approved a resolution allowing Rosa Parks to lie in honor at the Rotunda in the U.S. Ca [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 30, 2005 8:06:27 PM
Comments
From your mouth to God's ear ... Alito makes me shiver.
Posted by: Scott | Oct 30, 2005 12:54:13 PM
A3G has it right, all right. I haven't heard a word from these people since 2:15 pm Friday. I still have my fingers crossed, though.
Posted by: Samuel Alito | Oct 30, 2005 2:48:21 PM
Two interesting opinions written by Brown can be found at People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367, 92 P.3d 369, 14 Cal.Rptr. 880 (2004) (regarding sentencing under California's Three Strikes law), and In re Gallego (1998) 18 Cal.4th 825, 959 P.2d 290, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d (1998) (conc. and dis. opn.) (regarding the general inefficacy of procedural bars in the habeas context).
Posted by: Victor Haltom | Oct 30, 2005 3:43:28 PM
I think it would be a monumental mistake for Bush to nominate Brown at the Parks memorial.
Massive. Ginormous. I'm not speaking as a law student per se, but just as someone who enjoys politics.
Rosa Parks is considered a national treasure. The only people who have ill feelings toward her wear white sheets over their heads. She is also seen as above petty politics. I believe that it would be seen as crass and in very poor taste for Bush to nominate JRB at the Parks ceremony. GWB should place a wreath there, give a respectful speech and not mention the SCOTUS nominee.
Posted by: Craig | Oct 30, 2005 5:47:04 PM
Ah...and Condi Rice her very self...she who declared that there couldn't be any racism in the treatment of the poor and black of New Orleans...she....was talking about Rosa Parks...ayayayay. What a grand day for the GOP. Two Percent approval from the African-American Community....now let's turn our attention to our weird friend Dear Janice Brown.....and on and on it goes, and where it stops, nobody knows!
Posted by: jjj | Oct 30, 2005 5:57:57 PM
The only thing "weird" about Janice Rogers Brown is her staggering integrity and her incredible intellectual journey. She would truly be "the perfect Justice" and would energize not only Bush's base, but the whole country when they get a chance to hear her speak at what would surely be the most exciting confirmation hearings ever, past or future. If Bush picks her, he will have made the smartest political move of his life, as well as putting the single best person on the Court. John Roberts appears to have been aiming for the Supreme Court since he was a child. JRB does not appear to be ambitious, in that sense. She was given a gift, a brilliant mind, and she ran with it. My hunch is she would want to be on the SC to further the same dreams for this country that motivated the Founding Fathers.
Posted by: Ron | Oct 30, 2005 6:46:19 PM
For some reason, a handful of posters on this blog have a fantasy about Janice Rogers Brown being a closet liberal on criminal law matters. She isn't. She won't be the nominee either.
Posted by: Anon | Oct 30, 2005 8:16:18 PM
The number of people who would be horrified at equating Rosa Parks with Janice Rogers Brown far outweighs the number who would nod and say OK, sure.
'The only thing "weird" about Janice Rogers Brown is her staggering integrity and her incredible intellectual journey.'
Maybe it just depends on the social circles you're in, because I find referring to Social Security as cannibalism and being pro-Lochner to be a bit weird. I suspect that a majority of Americans would agree, at least judging by their voting patterns. I agree that she seems to have a well-integrated mindset and consistent beliefs, but so did Ayn Rand and I don't think she would have been an excellent Supreme Court Justice.
Posted by: PG | Oct 30, 2005 9:00:37 PM
