or -- crikey! -- go for the brass ring and try for three conservatives

Go for it. Stick it in and break it off.

Fuck it. Nothing to lose. He can always back off later and settle.

Jesus, they all keep retiring and Bush will HAVE to appoint Gonzalez - there'll be no one left!

I kid, I kid.

Solidarity-sloshed with Britain: I'm totally fucked up now. Bless them, Lord, for they make a mighty brew. Be with them as they break out the Holy Hand Grenade of WhoopAss.

Libertarians are assholes. Really. Name a libertarian that isn't a prick. Sure, we all have libertarian leanings, but that's not the same. Then again, there is Alex Kosinski. He's a libertarian, and at times even a prick. But, he *is* funny.

Go for three. When you've got your boot on your enemy's neck you're supposed to break it, not settle for 2 out of 3.

I don't know, sometimes you have to be pragmatic, and personally, I like it, Ace.

I wonder what the kids at Kos and DU think about this? Not enough to wade through the sewer though. Even if it's bogus, it's nice to think about them going insane for a few days.

Well, more insane than usual anyway.

Can you imagine how batshit the lefty blogs will go if this pans out? I honestly can't think of anything else that would make them crazier. Maybe if Hillary got shot or something. Short of that? Nothing.

Ace, faith in your friends isn't such a *bad* thing. After all,

Luke Skywalker: Your overconfidence is your weakness.

Emperor Palpatine: Your faith in your friends is yours.

Although a lot of Ewoks had to take dirt naps in the interim, it all worked out for Luke in the end.

Swing away, Dubya.

Swing. Away.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Brass ring, baby. Brass f'n ring.

I'm with Allah - Bush should appoint whoever the hell he wants.

The left has yet to get one simple fact about democracy through its collective skull - when you lose an election, the other guy gets to lead.

If they want to appoint judges to the Court, let them start winning elections.

but I'm your bestest friend ever!

the three-way scenario is so fun... Chuck will get overloaded. Ted will sound ridiculous. Byrd will sound Alzheimer-y.

I like it.

If this happens, it'll prove tha Allah is the brightest diety in the blogging sky!

Except, Gonzalez said he wasn't a candidate today. Garza would be a better choice than Gonzalez. Gonzalez would piss a lot of Cons off no matter who else was nominated. In addition, I can't see Bush wanting to have another confirmation battle over another AG nominee. I like the way you think though, Ace--especially the batshit ass-raping-approving libertarian selection. Watch, no one will even resign tomorrow. I think there are monkeys in DC that simply make this crap up just to see us "wonks" wet ourselves.

The problem with the "libertarian" pick is that it would inflame conservative social issues voters.

Does Bush want his Supreme Court legacy to include appointing the guy who writes the "Pot Smoking is a Constitutional Right" opinion?

Or, say, an opinion (in the wake of Schiavo) on which the Libertarian justice finds a "Right to Die" within the Constitution?

Or, say, the majority opinion in Sullivan vs. Ace O' Spades, in which the Libertarian writes the "Gay Marriage is a Constitutional Right" opinion?

I could go on. Sure there are plenty of economic issues where Libertarians and Social Conservatives find common ground, but if you think the social issue fissure that was exposed between the Libertarians and the Conservatives was ugly during Schiavo, imagine what it would look like if a Bush-appointed Libertarian Justice was actually in a position of influence and cast the deciding vote.

The fact is, if Bush gets to name 3 conservative Justices, he can reshape the court for generations. Scalia, Thomas, Bushes 3 vs Ginsberg, Souter and Breyer. Kennedy becomes irrelevant. He can't even be a swing vote.

If he names a Libertarian it Becomes Scalia/Thomas/Bush 2 Conservatives vs. Ginsberg/Souter/Breyer with 2 wild cards: Kennedy and the Libertarian.

On a host of social issues, I see Kennedy, the Libertarian, and the 3 Liberals trumping the 4 conservatives.

And the conservatives would howl. And the GOP would suffer politically. And W's judicial legacy would be "he promised us Scalia and Thomas...and he gave us Souter II".

Let the first Libertarian president (*snicker*) appoint Libertarian justices. Until then, Allah is correct: Go for the Brass Ring. Go for all 3.

Add to the rumor mill:

1. Ruth the Bat Ginsburg will announce she is leaving due to a recurrence of a medical condition.

2. Souter the Poofter says he is leaving to spend more quality time with his mother and to fight an eminent domain lawsuit on his home. Speculation also exists that Scalia muttered a dark aside to Souter after Sandy Baby resigned - "Now that she is gone, I can focus my stinging, degrading dissents or majority opinions as Chief Justice to be...on you! Muwahhaha!"

3. Justice Breyer is resigning to become Chief Justice of Israel. "I always liked their Constitution better," Breyer explained.

4. Reinquist refused to confirm he was leaving. Or maybe he didn't. When asked, he made gargling noises. The 6 medical staff attending him were silent.

5. Clarence Thomas said he would resign if Janice Rogers Brown was appointed. "Black lawyer bitches. Ain't nuthin but trouble, let me tell you..."

6. Chuck Schumer, on hearing Thomas's remarks, urged Bush to appoint Janice Rogers Brown.

7. Dick Gephardt made a personal pitch to Bill Frist. "Look, I'm out of politics, gave the Primaries to Dean then Kerry, assuring Bush's re-election. He owes me. And if Brown is a black sharecroppers daughter with middling ABA ratings running on biography...well I'm a milk truck drivers son with middling ABA ratings and have gone through life without eyebrows.

8. Scalia was not available for comment, doing out of season duck hunting with VP Cheney. But he had previously expressed interest in being appointed the 1st Italian VP if Cheney croaked.

9. Anthony Kennedy announced he was NOT leaving, but would take over as the "Switch on the Court". He was explaining that he would smack a Justices ass, then they would smack his...when worried clerks took him aside and said that O'Connor was a switch opinion - not a BDSM switch.

10. Emilio Garza began a campaign to oust Gonzalez as the top Hispanic candidate. "Notre Dame 2nd string football, combat marine, take no prisoners anti-abortion guy like me kick that little cholo's ass - amigo to Dubya or not."

Or, say, the majority opinion in Sullivan vs. Ace O' Spades, in which the Libertarian writes the "Gay Marriage is a Constitutional Right" opinion?

You mean Andrew can sue to force Ace to become his bride? No way. Ace looks like crap in white.

The ABA is run by whacko leftists. They gave similar ratings to Posner, and Luttig.

I'll level with you guys: I don't think three hardliners is necessarily the best deal for us. I understand the opposition to Roe as a matter of legal and moral principle, but a case could be made that having it off the table as an electoral issue has redounded greatly to the GOP's advantage. You put it back in play and you're taking a big, big risk.

A moderate who sides with the right wing of the Court on property rights and federalism and with the left wing on abortion, I could live with.

You never know what a guy hopped up on Val-U-Rite vodka and Klonopin will say yes to at any given moment. Of course when the buzz wears off, that's when the second thoughts (and the lawsuits) come in...

But by that time, Sully would have made sure that it would be a little to late for Ace to be able to wear white at the wedding.

But by that time, Sully would have made sure that it would be a little to late for Ace to be able to wear white at the wedding.

And that's what happens to guys who don't believe in "Best Friends Forever."

Sully barebacking ACE on their honeymoon.

The thought is..well...gob-smackingly vile!

Do they have chasity belts for guys? Time to fit ace with one.

I'd be lying if I didn't say that I am at least the second reader who thought of the Emperor Palpatine quote regarding faith in friends upon reading your original post. Or I'm at least the second one to admit it.

Anyway, I think your suggestions on the nominations are refreshing. I've been following politics way too long and I've lost some of that outsider wisdom that you exhibit. I never even thought of the whole libertarian angle. Obviously, for Rehnquist, we need another guy who will vote to overturn Roe and allow states to ban monkey sex and stuff. But we don't want a bunch of Justices who will allow the five wolves to eat the one lamb or however that stupid analogy goes. So put a libertarian in there in Stevens' place! Someone who would both tell the gov't to get off other people's property as well as defend abortion and monkey sex and all that good stuff. And then, of course, you get Gonzo as the new O'Connor.

I agree that Democrats today care about one social issue, and that's abortion, and this combo of Justices would probably pass. It would also give some real ideological balance to the Court as opposed to having five guys like Scalia.

I also think that all those social conservatives who say they're gonna stay home in coming elections probably comprise about one tenth of one percent of the population of Jefferson Davis City, Alabama, and their absence at the polls will change absolutely nothing. And then we'll all see how powerless the theocons really are. And then the Republicans will realize, hey, they don't need all those religious nuts to win elections. And then we'll all be a lot better off.

Except for the religious nuts. They'll be going nuts over all the monkey sex.

Lousy monkeys.

Man, can we just PLEEEZE nominate Ann Coulter? I'd love to see her on the SCOTUS.

Or, you know, naked.

I disagree with your whole analysis. The three best strict interpreter judges should be nominated. That is the safest approach and will help eliminate inappropriate judicial activism. In the next President's term, Scalia and Ginsburg will retire and if a Dem is in office, they'll be WAY lefty judges.

Look at Reagan. Only 1 of three turned out as a strict constructionist/federalist. If history is any indicator, you are lucky if one stays as a strict constructionist.

Allah wrote:

I'll level with you guys: I don't think three hardliners is necessarily the best deal for us.

If "us" is the GOP--you may be right. But I'd like to think (hope) that Bush has a somewhat longer view than merely the 2006 midterms.

If the goal is POLITICAL--then yeah, go 2 originalists and a "sop" to the left. If, however, the goal is to actually establish a Court that will embody those principles that the political element has fought so hard for, then you go for it all.

(note: when I say "embody those principles"--I'm talking in the legal sense--I don't care if 99% of social cons want Evangelical Protestantism to be the official religion, it ain't in the document so you don't get it)

Also remember, that a large part of the GOP's electoral success over the years has been to run on the platform of "the courts is a'wacky!"--hard to see how failing to follow through on that rather important plank will help the GOP at all in the future.

No way. Two out of three changes -nothing-: Rehnquist was one of the stalwarts, and O'Connor was pretty good on the conservative side despite her flop on Roe and the disgraceful crap of recent terms. Furthermore, we're two votes short of reversing Roe, not one. For Bush to put in one crypto-lib and three conservatives would cost him a ton of political capital with no return. Might as well go whole hog, and stick Cornyn (who might well be an easier confirm) in after two big conservatives.

Gonzales as a -fourth- appointee might be acceptable, not before. We have to squash that notion in the bud.

Moon God: if you think partisan advantage is more important than the rule of law, you're nuts, and learned nothing in law school. Why are Republicans in the party in the first place?

The whole point of reversing Roe -- and I say this as one not particularly into its end of the 'life' issue -- is to cut the Court's current mischief-making jurisprudence out by the root. With it, our judicial overlords have sanction to make up whatever shit they want, no matter what the actual words of the Constitution say. We'll never end the left's hold on the legal 'mainstream' while it remains -- too many institutions have been twisted and perverted to justify Roe's existence, and all of them generate more bad 'law'. (Cf. the career of Ronald Dworkin.)

Roe delenda est.

Oh, and Ace? What if that libertarian joins with the lefties and, say, one replacement Hillary justice to mandate gay "marriage" throught the country?

Bush's name will be mud, and rightly so.

Three strict constructionists, period. Garza instead of Gonzales. Brown, Owen, Cornyn, or Luttig for the other two. If he gets a fourth opening, then nominate some wild card or a horse or something, just to finally push the lefties off the edge. But until then, true conservatives. We are the majority for a reason. Act like it.

Can we stop with the Sully references already? I mean Lord knows he's not the easiest to offend. Criticizing his views and diatribes just lend support to the idea that he's respected and mainstream. I personally never read people who aren't smart enough to understand the concept of "safe sex". Anyway, if we're going to bitch about him, lets do something constructive. Say, get a Sully vs. Fred Phelps cage match to the death organized for PPV. Win. Win. Baby.

The left has yet to get one simple fact about democracy through its collective skull - when you lose an election, the other guy gets to lead.

Only if that guy wins with like 42 percent of the vote. Then it's a mandate.

Otherwise, it's Diebold and Ohio-way robbery.

why give in to these liberals? you appoint the best judges. and u don't worry about ideology. nowhere does it say u have to replace a liberal with a liberal. stevens was appointed by a republican for christsakes.

I think Estrada over Garza or Gonzales as the first Hispanic justice would be better for the way it would back the Dems into a political corner- if Reid and Co. complain how he has no judicial experience, the GOP can hit the Dems over the head about their obstruction in 2006.

Go for three hardliners. With the Republican track record on Supreme Court appointments, we might get one
conservative.

Can we stop with the Sully references already? I mean Lord knows he's not the easiest to offend.

Whose trying to offend Sullivan? You got it back asswards. We're trying to poke Ace. And, can I put you down for $50 for Ace's bridal shower gift?

Now this could really change things. With Rehnquist and O'Connor retiring, the question was never really whether Bush could move the Court significantly to the right, but whether his opponents could move it to the left. A Stevens retirement would change everything.

I also like the idea of libertarian nominees, but it seems those are about as scarce as hen's teeth. It's almost as if to find a genuine originalist, you have to swallow a bit of socially conservative taint. I hope I'm proven wrong.

I also like the idea of libertarian nominees, but it seems those are about as scarce as hen's teeth.

Alex Kosinski, libertarian.

Gonzales won't be the first hispanic justice - Justice Cardozo was of Spanish-American dissent.

Fifty bucks? You're only getting Ace ONE truckload of Val-U-Rite? C'mon splurge a little.
Put up for $100 so he can get a truckload of Val-U-Rite and a whole Klonopin pill.

Val-U-Rite and one Klonopin? Are you implying ace is a cheap date?

all libertarians aren't pro-abortion either. you just have to think the unborn baby has some rights as well.

Ace... it all depends on what your definition of libertarian is.

To the tune of Bless 'em all:

Fuck 'em all, Fuck 'em all, push the Liberals to topple and fall,
fuck all the hippies and their bastard sons,
never give up till our battle is won,
so we're saying goodbye to them all,
you can hear them like children they bawl,
when we get our people on the USSC,
oh how unhappy we know they will be,
so we're saying goobye to them all,
its been a bruising and batl'n brawl,
but we have endured and the battle is won,
their time in history is over and done,
so we're saying goodbye to 'em all,
Fuck 'em all, fuck 'em all, fuck 'em all.

If President Bush is lucky enough to nominate three justices, he had better nominate three Scalia or Thomas...that's what he promised, that why I voted for him, and that's who I expect him to nominate (as many times as necessary to get them confirmed).

Rehnquist might announce this afternoon

Just a rumor...

"Anyway, the politics of it are beautiful. One Hispanic, one woman, one guy who thinks you should be able to ass-rape a retarded monkey while injecting distilled cobra venom directly into your wife-slash-sister's nipple. "

-This is the greatest thing I've ever read on a blog. Period!

-This is the greatest thing I've ever read on a blog. Period!
You need to go back to last year when Ace was trying to out slut the Washingtonienne. That was hall of fame material.

A moderate who sides with the right wing of the Court on property rights and federalism and with the left wing on abortion, I could live with.

Allah, Roe V. Wade is an issue of Federalism. The power granted to Congress (and by extension, Federal courts) is to mint money, deal with interstate trade issues, foreign policy, and so on. At no time was it intended to standardize moral policy for the States.

Hmm... Ann Coulter for SCOTUS??? Imagine the hearings... She'd get to respond, right?

Roe usurped powers reserved to the states under our Constitution. Another example of SCOTUS making bad laws from the bench and polarising the Nation.

and no way i'm kicking in 50$ to Acey's bridal shower....he's betrothed to me!
Dump me for Randy Andy??!! Best Friends forever!!?? Think I'm gonna be in YOUR bridal party, Ace??! pffftt.