Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (122910)	7/1/2005 2:57:17 PM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793845

That guy supposedly has sources in the White House, so I wouldn't dismiss that. At first it seems an odd choice, but the more you think about it, nominating a sitting Senator may be brilliant. How far would Schumer and the rest of the gang go in trashing him? Puts them in an awkward position. Sorry the blackrobes on the 5th circuit didn't see it your way. Better luck next time! <g>

To: carranza2 who wrote (122910)	7/1/2005 4:23:44 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793845

Judge Garza Supreme Court nominatin blog Candidates > Garza \| 08:53 PM \| Tom Goldstein For some time, I've been saying in interviews that I believed that Judge Garza was the most likely nominee for Chief Justice. I've lost some faith in that prediction, if only because no one else seems to agree with me. But I remain confident that he would be in the list of, say, the top three candidates. Judge Garza has both the tenure on the Fifth Circuit to have the stature of the Chief Justice and the conservative credentials to be an attractive candidate for nomination by President Bush. But so do several other judges; the reasons Judge Garza has received particular attention are demographic and political. There has yet to be a Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. Not only has the President expressed his support for diversity on the bench, but the nation's Hispanic population is widely regarded as the one of the keys to electoral success in the future. Appointing a Hispanic Chief Justice would be a dramatic gesture that (unlike the appointment of the Attorney General) would resonate for the decades of his tenure. I'm reminded of this point by a new Census report, which concludes (as summarized by the New York Times) that "Hispanics have the fastest growth rate of any other racial and ethnic group in the nation, a trend experts say is likely to continue because of a steady pace of immigration and higher birth rates." One obvious response to this argument is that it would call for the appointment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is much closer to the President than Judge Garza. I agree that the short tenure of the Attorney General doesn't present any obstacle to a nomination. But social conservatives have often expressed their strenuous opposition to Gonzales's appointment to replace the Chief, an appointment that could quite possibly move the Court to the left. There doesn't seem to be any need or desire for the President to cross that constituency. (Judge Garza is from Texas and may have ties to the President as well; I just don't know.) Others have said that the appointment of Attorney General Gonzales is - as a political matter - a sufficient sign of the President's commitment to the Hispanic population. (In addition, the President named a Hispanic Commerce Secretary.) I think that underestimates the potentially timeless significance of an appointment of the Chief Justice of the United States. Why might the President nominate not Judge Garza but instead the two judges whom, at the moment, I view as the principal candidates: Judges Michael Luttig and John Roberts? Judge Garza is slightly (6 or 7 years) older. Luttig and Roberts are described by supporters and acknowledged by detractors as brilliant, which is a central consideration when looking for someone to guide the future of the Court's jurisprudence. I haven't heard Judge Garza described in those terms, but that could be nothing more than a function of the fact that I talk principally to people in Washington, where Luttig and Roberts are much better known commodities. I haven't studied his opinions to form an opinion of my own. But in sum, I think that those who leave Judge Garza off the very short list of leading candidates are making a mistake." sctnomination.com