Right wing commentary on world politics from a man on a mission to prove that Conservatism transcends national boundaries. Thoughtful comments from people of all political persuasions are welcome and encouraged. Contact the blogger at elephantman.conservaglobe@gmail.com.

Monday, October 31, 2005

YIPPEE!!!!!!!!!! (Part 2)

Give me an A! Give me an L! Give me an I! Give me a T! Give me an O!

What's that spell?


Well, I was wrong again. I called Luttig against my better judgement, and my SCOTUS record has dropped to 0-3. That said, I am extremely pleased with Judge Alito. He has experience, he's not afraid to be a lone dissenter, and he places an extremely high value on judicial restraint. He has won senate approval twice (once for a District Court, once for the 3rd Circuit), both times by a vote of 100-0; and he was nominated to the 3rd circuit at age 39 (young for a judge). The Democrats will not get any traction opposing this man, and two members of the "gang of 14" have already said that they will enforce the nuclear option if a fillibuster is implemented (DeWine and Grahm).


Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Sunday, October 30, 2005


Well, I have a better chance of getting the Supreme court nomination right this time, since there seem to be only two major candidates left in the running. If the media's sources have been correct, then the only potential nominees on the table are Samuel Alito and Michael Luttig. While I think that both would make wonderful justices, I would preferably have Luttig. I like Luttig over Alito because, based on what I've read, Luttig has a more aggressive temperament. The words that seem to come up in reading about him are "dogged" and "determined".

While Alito is a solid conservative, my reading indicates that he is very genial and a really nice guy. There is nothing wrong with that; but those qualities are embodied in John Roberts, and I think that the next nominee should provide a temperamental (though not philosophical) counterpoint to the new Chief Justice. Being a Supreme Court justice is not about being a nice guy, it is about getting the truth at any cost and vigorously protecting the integrity of our Constitution. Michael Luttig seems like the type of guy who doesn't take any krud from anyone, and that is a good quality when you have to face the best lawyers in the country every day.

It think that the President will also see these qualities in Judge Luttig. Hence, I will break with conventional wisdom and make the following prediction based on the above arguments and my gut feeling:


I will certainly admit that I could be wrong on this, Alito is generally considered the front-runner and could very well be the nominee. However, Luttig has been getting an increasing amount of buzz over the weekend. Alito was considered the the clear-cut favorite on Friday, but now he is placed on an even par with Luttig in most articles. This, to me, indicates that the President may be leaning towards Luttig.

The President also seems to like surprises, so he could nominate someone other than Alito or Luttig. If that happens, I would watch Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, Karen Williams, Edith Jones, Emilio Garza, Michael McConnell, Maura Corrigan, and Consuelo Callahan. I would be very pleased with any of these other than McConnell and Callahan.

All of that said, I'm still sticking with Luttig as my pick (with Alito as s the second most likely). Good luck to all potential conservative nominees.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

PERSON OF THE WEEK - Oct 24-28, 2005

I faced a difficult choice this week: should I give the title of Person of the Week to a figure in the Plame name blame game (Otherwise known as the CIA leak investigaiton) or Harriet Miers? In the end I decided that Miers' withdrawl trumped the leak investigation. Why? Because the leak investigation ended with a thud rather than a bang. The only indictments handed down were weak and involved only the supposed cover-up of an action that was not a a crime. Scooter Libby didn't really do anything to affect the news, and Patrick Fitzgerald didn't issue a shocking enough indictiment to qualify as Person of the Week.

Well, enough about the people that DIDN'T win, let's talk about Harriet Miers. I can't say that her withdrawl was totally unexpected, but it still hit Washington like a ton of bricks. With Miers off the table, the President must go back to square one and pick a new nominee using different criteria than he did for the Miers and Roberts nominations. Instead of trying to win over the Democrats with a palatable nominee, he must now win back the support of his own party by picking a solid, hard-core judicial conservative.

Another reason the Miers' withdrawl was so important is that it means that Sandra Day O'Connor will remain on the court for several landmark cases on the docket for this autumn, possibly including a major abortion-related case. So, instaed of having a conservative majority, we will still have a divided court with a pro-Roe swing voter. By withdrawing her nomination, Harriet Miers may have changed the course of judicial history concerning abortion.

Lastly, Miers earned "Person of the Week" due to her participation in another process, the selection of a new Supreme Court justice. As White House Counsel , Miers plays a MAJOR role in vetting potential nominees and advising the President on who to choose. While she is no longer the nominee, she is still a very powerful force in process of replacing Justice O'Connor.

So, for shaking up the Supreme court nomination process, Harriet Miers is ConservaGlobe's first ever two-time Person of the Week.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, October 27, 2005



Let me start of by saying that Harriet Miers is a fine individual and a brilliant lawyer, a fine White House Counsel, and would have been a great nominee for Attorney General, Solicitor General, or any number of offices in the Justice Department. That said, I had recently decided that the best thing to do was to "Bork" her for this postion. Why? Because she has not written at all on issues of Constutional Law. To reject Ms. Miers would have been what I call an "anti-Borking." Judge Bork's rejection sent the message that proven, strict conservatives would not be confirmed by the Senate, setting off the string of "stealth" nominees that sit on today's court. Forcing a stealth nominee to withdraw her name is a reversal of the "Bork principle". This "anti-Borking" sends the message that a stealth nomination is absolutelty unacceptable and that a nominee MUST have a proven conservative record.

I have been wondering if this nomination was planed by the Bush administration to purposefully set up an "anti-Borking" situation. Harriet Miers, as White House counsel, had a large part in vetting Supreme Court prospects. Seeing that most of the top candidates could be "Borked", I would not be suprised if Miers herself came up with a plan to reverse the "Bork principle" by purposely putting herself forward as an unqualified stealth nominee. Remember that Miers' name was not mentioned in the rumor mill as a nominee until only a few days befrore her nomination. Before that, all of the buzz had been focused on Priscilla Owen, who was fillibustered for her current postion on an appellate court. Now that all of the Democrats are screaming about lack of experience, Bush can now call their bluf by "bowing to demands for an experienced candidate" and throwing Priscilla Owen in their faces.

Watch the following candidates:
Priscilla Owen
Janice Rogers Brown
Maura Ciorrigan
Sam Alito
Emilio Garza
Karen Williams

Please notice that these are the most conservative picks from my previous shortlist. The only new name is Janice Rogers Brown. Left to his own devices, Bush would probably not pick Brownm, but she is the one name that conseravtives are constantly referencing as exactly the type of person that they want on the Court. Therefore, I think Bush has no choice but to give her a serious second look.

Monday, October 24, 2005

PERSON OF THE WEEK - Oct 16-22, 2005

In recent years, I have noticed a disturbing trend toward xenophobia in the politics of many nations. "Anti-Immigration" and "Far Right" parties hsve been gaining serious traction in Europe, with the "Progress Party" recently becoming the largest opposition party in Norway. However, the latest development in this xenophobic movement did not take place in Europe, but in New Zealand. Needing extra votes to prop up a new government, the Labour Party turned to the anti-immigration "New Zealand First" party. As part of the deal, NZ First leader Winston Peters was named Foreign Minister. This is significant in that, as far as I know, Peters has attained the highest postion of any anti-immigration politician (in any country) to date. Peters has also served as Deputy Prime Minister in a previous government, but I think that Foreign Minister is a more powerful position (and I don't know if Peters was as rabidly anti-immigration at that time).

As a conservative, xenophobic movements disturb me for a number of reasons. First, I beleive in opportunity for all. I think that people ought to be able to immigrate to democratic countries to take advantage of the freedom and opportunity that democracies offer, as long as they do so legally. Second, I worry very much about such people transforming from mere xenophobics into all-out racists. Third, I very much worry about such people eclipsing true conservatives as the main spokesmen for the political right in their various countries. If and when that happens, the right wing will cease to be effective, leading to long periods of leftist government.

Luckily, Winston Peters does not seem to be QUITE as much of a threat as I described in the previous paragraph. I can't say that he is an outright racist, because his policies have always been so enigmatic that nobody really knows what he believes. I can also say that his party is not a threat to New Zealand's main conservative party, the National Party, in any way (National has 48 Parliament seats, NZ First has only 8). However, I think that he is dangerous because, as Foreign Minister, he has the potential to make New Zealand look very bad to the international community. I also think that he is significant because he proves that firebrand xenophobic politicians can reach the highest echelons of government. For all of these "acheivements", New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters is ConservaGlobe's Person of the Week.

Honorable/Dishonorable Mentions: Baby Charlotte, Harriet Miers, Patrick Fitzgerald, Hurricane Wilma

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In Memoriam: Rosa Parks

Civil Rights activist Rosa Parks has died at the age of 92.

With the simple refusal to move to the back of a bus, Parks set off a cahin of events that would change America forever. In a world of prejudice and hate, Parks refused to be pushed down. Martin Luther King and other orators deservedly get a lot of the credit for the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, but they would have been totally ineffective without the support of millions of ordinary African-Americans like Rosa Parks.

I was born quite a number of years after that historic moment on a bus in Montgomery, but I still owe much to Rosa Parks. She played a major role in creating the increasingly colorblind nation in which I grew up. Thanks to people like her, I have never had to deal with a segregated society. I have never been forced to watch other humans treated with the disrespect that was once so common; and that is such a blessing in and of itself.

Rosa Parks did so much to help alter the laws, but also the core values of this great nation. For that, this white man owes her a tremendous debt of gratitude.

Rest in Peace.

Technorati Tag:

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Person of the Week delay

It's late, I'm tired, and I'm putting off Person of the Week until Monday. Tune in tomorrow, I think you'll be really surprised by the pick.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

UK Conservatives pick leadership finalists.

The results of the scond vote of Conservative MPs are as follows:

David Cameron: 90
David Davis: 57
Liam Fox: 51 (Knocked Out)

The media has all but given the job to Cameron, but most of Fox's supporters can be expected to switch to Davis. To put the vote total a little differently: Right wingers won 108 votes, with "modernizers" winning only 90. In my mind, Davis is still the faviorite.

Congratulations to both David Davis and David Cameron. Once again, may the best man win.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Ken Clarke OutFOXed!

Sorry for being so tardy posting the results of the British Conservative leadership vote. So, for those of you who don't already know, the votes were:

David Davis: 62
David Cameron: 56
Liam Fox: 42
Ken Clarke: 38 (Knocked Out)

This really suprised me, as I thouroughly expected Liam Fox to be bounced in the first round. However, he managed to gather just enough votes to edge out Ken Clarke. I had endorsed Davis for leader; but I hadn't really given Fox a serious look, and I must say that I am rather impressed with him. For one, he's younger than Davis (Davis is 56, Fox is 43). Secondly, he seemed more comfortable with the media than Davis when I watched the candidates' reactions to the vote on the BBC. For now, I'm sticking with Davis as my pick, but I think that Fox has warranted a serious second look.

The next vote is tommorow. If it is at the same time of day, it should be completed by 5:00 PM Grenwich Mean Time (2:00 PM Eastern, 11:00 AM Pacific in the U.S.). David Cameron is expected to draw a lot of support from Clarke. He has already recieved 11 new endoresements from Conservative Members of Parliament since Tuesday's vote (mostly former Clarke backers), and is expected to come in first. Liam Fox has picked up 5 new endorsements, and the BBC seems to think that he may get just enough to oust Davis, who had been the frontrunner coming into the first vote.

My Prediction for the second ballot: Cameron comes in first, Davis Second, Fox is ousted.

A Cameron win on this ballot does not at all indicate that he will have the most support coming into the final vote. The only reason that he will win the vote is because he is the only "modernizer" left in the race, while the right-wingers will still be split between two choices. I think that most of Fox's backers will support Davis in the finals, giving Davis a majority (and vice versa if Fox makes it).

While David Cameron is considered the man to beat at the moment, I still think that he has an uphill climb when it comes to convincing the party membership to choose his "modernizing" agenda over the more traditional conservative values offered by Davis and Fox. I refuse to call Mr. Cameron the favorite to win just yet.

Good Luck to David Davis and Liam Fox, may the best man win!

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Monday, October 17, 2005

UK Conseravative Leadership Race Resources.

Check out the leadership blog at Conservative Home for a solid conservative perspective.


Check out the BBC News' "UK Politics" section.

British Conservatives to pick new leader.

I have not previously blogged on this subject, but I have followed it more than almost any other story in the past few months.

After Britain's recent parliamentary election, Conservative Party leader Michael Howard announced his resignation. (For my American readers, the job of "party leader" entails leading the Conservative Party in Parliament AND standing as the party's candidate for Prime Minister when an election is held). On Tuesday, Conservative Members of Parliament will begin the process of choosing a new leader from a field of four candidates: David Davis (Shadow Home Secretary), David Cameron (Shadow Education Secretary), Ken Clarke (MP, Former Chancellor of the Exchequer), and Dr. Liam Fox (Shadow Foreign Secretary). After Tuesdays vote, the candidate with the fewest votes will be officially kicked out of the race. The Conservative MPs will then vote on the remaining three candidates on Thursday, and again the one with the fewest votes is out. The remaining two candidates will be submitted to a vote of the entire membership of the Conservative Party sometime in the near future.

THIS ELECTION IS VERY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IT WILL DETERMINE THE PATH OF BRITISH CONSERVATISM FOR YEARS IF NOT DECADES TO COME. I say this because the party is deeply divided between a "modernizing" (read: drastic shift to the left) faction, represented by Cameron and Clarke; and what I would call a "true conservative" faction, represented by Davis and Fox. The modernizers say that the party must go their way if it ever wants to be in government again, thinking that Britons are no longer open to traditional conservatism. On the other hand the "true conservatives" stress that staying true to the party's core values is paramount.

My take is this: If holding to your core values means that you will be a perpetual opposition party, then so be it; that's better than selling your soul just to get elected. I doubt that very many votes will be won by electing David Cameron or Ken Clarke. Why? Because I think that the British people will recognize that by electing one of these men, the Conservative Party will do anything, including abandoning it's core social values, in order to get into power. I would venture to say that Britain wants to be governed by a party grounded in it's values, not one which changes it's platform whenever public opinion turns against it. If a party is that wishy-washy and weak in the opposition, then why would I want to put them into government?!

Based on the the arguments which you just read, CONSERVAGLOBE ENDORSES DAVID DAVIS FOR THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF BRITAIN. Davis is the candidate most committed to conservative values on both the economic and social fronts, and I trust him not to be wishy washy.

My second choice is Liam Fox. Fox is also a conservative, but he lacks the support in Parliament to be a legitimate contender. I also place him behind Davis because, from my reading, Fox does not seem to have quite the reputation as a rock-solid conservative that Davis has.

If you must elect a "modernizer", I would prefer David Cameron. Cameron is not as solid as Davis or Fox, but he does have a few things going for him. First, he is only 38, meaning he could bring stability with a long term as party leader. Second, he has charisma, which is exactly what got Blair into office. From my point of view, these factors make him more electable than Ken Clarke. So, if the name of the game is getting into government at any cost, David Cameron is your man.

Which brings me to Ken Clarke. While I must say that I was impressed by Clarke's recent speech to the party's annual conference at Blackpool, in which he did a fine job of outlining the benefits of a conservative free-market economy, I still think that his election as party leader would be a disaster. First off, Ken Clarke is not in line with the party membership on the vast majority of issues. He like the E.U, the membership is slightly Euroskeptic. He wanted to join the Euro, the membership wanted to save the Pound. He is thinks the Iraq conflict is a disaster, his party supports the war. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Second, Clarke is 65, meaning that he could be in his 70s by the next general election. Thirdly, Clarke has an ego problem. He has been a horrible sport after losing two previous bids for party leadership, refusing to accept a seat in the shadow cabinet under the last three party leaders. Instead, he waits for the men who bested him to resign and then launches yet another leadership campaign telling the party that he could do so much better. The Labor party have a much younger and more effective candidate, Chancellor Gordon Brown, ready to take over from Blair at a moment's notice. And if anyone thinks that and aging, self-centered Ken Clarke is the man to beat him, then they are sorely mistaken.

My prediction: Davis will win the first ballot with nearly all of the right-wing MPs on his side, ousting fellow rightist Liam Fox. Davis will also win the second ballot, leaving Cameron and Clarke to duel for second place. I think that Cameron will edge Clarke by a razor thin margin. In the final duel between Davis and Cameron, party members will remain true to their core values and chose the good conservative over the charismatic centrist. DAVID DAVIS WILL BE THE NEXT LEADER OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, October 16, 2005

PERSON OF THE WEEK - 0ct. 9-15, 2005

I had been hoping to award "Person of the Week" to this amazing woman a month ago, but my hopes were dashed by her party's worse-than-expected performance in Germany's recent parliamentary elections. Now, after a month of negotiations, Angela Merkel has officially become Germany's Chancellor-Elect; and as such has earned the title.

Merkel becomes not only Germany's first female Chancellor, but also the firt Chancellor from the former East Germany since reunification . To me, the latter is the more significant of the two "firsts". It is hearwarming to anyone rise above a life under Communism to become successful in a democratic system; but it is especially encouraging when that person is a pro-democracy, pro-business, pro-Western conservative instead of a socialist. Angela Merkel is just such a person. Instead of the big-government policies of leftist Chancellor Gerhard Schroeer, she campaigned for smaller bureaucracy and labor reform. Instead of high taxes to cover more and more government spending, she advocated small government and a flat tax.

For overcoming a life under communism, proving that Easterners CAN win in a free and united Germany, and bringing common sense policies to the German government; Chancellor-Elect Angela Merkel is ConservaGlobe's Person of the Week.

Honorable Mention: Liberian presidential candidates George Weah and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Iraqis vote, Liberals and terrorists unhappy.

After decades of repression under Saddam, Iraqis are voting on a constitution which enshrines individual rights and democracy. For some reason (hate of Bush), this seems to make the liberal media very angry.

While most news stories have included token quotes from happy Shiites and Kurds, the focus was not on them. Instead, I have seen story after story quoting depressed Sunnis who fear repression and spout anti-American sentiments. One AP article ended with this quote from a Shiite shopkeeper "Only force can bring results with a people like us in Iraq. Unfortunately, we need someone like Saddam. This government is too weak." Please note that over 90 percent of Shiites support the constitution, yet the media chooses to quote the small minority (In fairness, happy Shiites were quoted earlier in the article, but I ALWAYS look to closing statements to determine a writer's feelings). Another included this quote from a Sunni: "This is all wrong. I said 'no' to a constitution written by the Americans". News flash: This constitution was WRITTEN BY AN ELECTED IRAQI GOVERNMENT LED BY A PARTY WHICH WAS NOT THE USA'S FIRST CHOICE! Yet another was titled "Sunnis Turn Out to Reject Iraqi Charter". Now that's a positive sentiment! (note obvious sarcasm in previous sentence.)

I have also read that this constitution could pass over the heads of the helpless Sunnis. That is a load of hooey! If three provinces reject the Constitution by a two thirds margin, then it fails. There are FOUR provinces with Sunni majorities (Ninevah, Salah ad Din, Al Anbar, Diyala), and turnout was pretty darn high in most of them (no figures are available for Al Anbar yet). If the entire Sunni population votes overwhelmingly against the constitution (which the media seems to think will happen) then the document will fail! So, the election process is set up so that Sunnis are not helpless at all.

Personally, I think that a larger than expected number of Sunnis (especially women) will vote in favor of the constitution, because they like individual rights as much as everyone else. Those who vote against will do so primarily out of fear, because all of the oil is in Shiite and Kurdish areas and they fear majority rule. However, most democratically elected governments are not as oppressive as Saddam, and I think that Sunnis will be very happy with the constitution in the years to come.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Monday, October 10, 2005

Merkel to become German Chancellor!

Angela Merkel and the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) have finally struck a power-sharing deal with the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in Germany, and Merkel will become Germany first female Chancellor and the first Chancellor from the former East Germany! While the "grand coalition" between the conservative CDU/CSU and their leftist SPD arch-rivals may not be a very stable or effective government, at least it will be better than Gerhard Schroeder's far-left SPD/Green coalition, which has lead Germany for the past seven years.

Under the agreement, the Social Democrats will be entitled the foreign, finance, labor, justice, health, transport, environment and development ministries (For Americans: "_____ Minister" is equivalent to "Secretary of ____" ); while the CDU/CSU will get the economy, defense, interior, agriculture, family and education ministries. If you count the Chancellor and her Cheif of Staff as cabinet officers, this gives both parties equal representation in the cabinet. It is unclear whether Gerhard Schroeder will play a part in the new government.

Personally, I think that counting the Chancellor as a cabinet post is baloney. She is head of government and the cabinet is under her supervision. I think that this really gives the SPD a cabinet majority and that the CDU/CSU should have demanded either the finance or justice ministry. Putting that aside, I am very happy that a deal has finally been struck.


PERSON OF THE WEEK -Oct 2-8, 2005

Sorry for not posting Sunday, I've been really busy in my real life.

I'm not going to write a column on this or put up a fancy graphic (I'll get back to that this Sunday), but I figured that I should let you know that the Person of the Week was, in my humble opinion....


Monday, October 03, 2005

My SCOTUS Record: 0-2

Well, I was wrong again about the Supreme Court pick (remember when I spent a whole paragraph detailing why John Roberts wouldn't be elevated to Chief Justice?). Two days ago, I totally dismissed the possibility of Harriet Miers being nominated (said she was "too close to the President"), and the President has foiled me again!!!

While Miers would certainly not have been my choice (I was rooting for Maura Corrigan), I refuse to lash out as other conservatives have. While Miers is the most unknown quantity to the American people, she is the candidate that the President knows the most about - as he has worked with her personally for over a decade. While I would have preferred to watch a knock-down, drag-out, war of ideologies style confirmation battle, it is probably in America's best interest to have a new justice seated as soon as possible.

To those conservatives who are fuming, I would like to point out a fundamental tenant of our judicial system: innocent until proven guilty. Harriet Miers has shown no signs of leftist or "moderate" thinking, and she has been a trusted and loyal ally of President Bush for years. She may be an unknown, but that does not make her a liberal.

Would I have preferred Maura Corrigan or Janice Rogers Brown, yes. Was I a little disappointed this morning, yes - but only because the confirmation battle won't be as entertaining as I had hoped for. However, If conservatives are willing to give Harriet Miers a chance, I think that they will be very impressed. The President has not been shy with his judicial appointments in the past, and I don't see why he would be now; he has complete confidence in this woman, and that's good enough for me. I can't wait to see the look on the Democratic senators' faces in about six months, when they are kicking themselves over letting such a hard-nosed conservative nominee sail through so easily.
Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Sunday, October 02, 2005

PERSON OF THE WEEK - Sep. 25 - Oct. 1, 2005

The single most controversial news story this week was the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay by Travis County (TX) District Attorney Ronnie Earle. Due to a rule made by the Republican Caucus, DeLay was forced to temporarily step aside as Majority Leader while under indictment. The media has had a feeding frenzy over DeLay's supposed crimes, and Democrats are thinking that they may finally have the boost that they need to take back the House in 2006. All of this without accusing Mr. DeLay of any specific wrongdoing. In fact, the indictment barely even mentions DeLay. The congressman's name is mentioned mentioned in the list of defendants at the beginning of the document, but not at all in the actual text of the accusations.

After reading the indictment, I'm not even sure that the "crimes" mentioned are even illegal in the first place. In the document, certain members the "Texans For a Republican Majority Political Action Committee" are accused of trying to circumvent campaign finance laws by accepting donations from corporations and then writing checks to candidates. The assumption is that the committee was attempting to violate a law limiting contributions to candidates by corporations. However, Political Action Committees (PACs) can legally collect as much money as they please, and what they do with that money is their decision not their donors'. The indictment is also breaks the rules in that it is not written in such a way as to allow the defendant to know what actions he is being accused of. The best that I can glean from the document is that DeLay is assumed to have committed conspiracy based on the fact that he knew the other defendants.

District Attorney Ronnie Earle has long history of indicting political opponents, both Republicans and conservative Democrats, whether he has cause or not. Most recently, he was laughed out of court when he indicted U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. He also discussed details of the DeLay case at a Democratic fundraiser in May, saying "I'm going to be the one to take down Tom DeLay!". This indictment seems to be pure politics, exploiting the Republican rule that indicted leaders must step aside (the Democrats have no such rule). If there were any substance behind the accusations, then Tom DeLay would have actually been accused of some crime in the indictment.

So, for bending the law for his own political purposes, District Attorney Ronnie Earle is ConservaGlobe's Person of the Week.

Honorable Mention: John Roberts

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Note: I honestly could not find a picture of Mr. Earle, so I used a graphic that I thought indicated a highly partisan Democrat.

Saturday, October 01, 2005

My SCOTUS shortlist.

I figured I'd join in on the rampant speculation on the next supreme court nominee, so here are my picks to get the job. These are the people who I think could actually be picked, not necessarily who I want to be picked (not in any particular order).

Consuelo Callahan (9th Circuit Court of Appeals)
Edith Clement (5th Circuit Court of Appeals)
Edith Jones (5th Circuit Court of Appeals)
Karen Williams (4th Circuit Court of Appeals)
Larry Thompson (Former Deputy Attorney General)
Alice Batchelder (6th Circuit Court of Appeals)
Maura Corrigan (Michigan Supreme Court)
Emilio Garza (5th Circuit Court of Appeals)
Sam Alito (3rd Circuit Court of Appeals)

Please note the conspicuous absence of Alberto Gonzales. I think that Gonzales is probably on the President's short list, but I think that the President knows what such a nomination would do to his approval rating.

Consuelo Callahan is probably my most of-the-wall prediction. She's not on most short lists, but an Associated Press article which is being constantly updated, re-titled, and then run again added her to it's watchlist yesterday. Such a late addition to a watchlist tells me that there may be some inside info that the President is looking at her. I think that she warrants heavy consideration in that she is the only candidate who is both female and Hispanic.

I list the two Ediths only because Clement seems to have been runner up to John Roberts and Jones has been on the short list for every Republican SCOTUS nomination since Souter. I don't think that they are the top candidates, but I can't bring myself to leave them out. I think that Clement is more likely than Jones.

Karen Williams is on everyone's RADAR., She was also fingered by Jay Sekulow (who supposedly has inside info) as one of the three people to watch in an interview with Sean Hannity. The other members of Sekulow's short list are Larry Thompson and Alberto Gonzales.

For why I picked Thompson, re-read the last sentence of the previous paragraph.

Batchelder is on the list because of the speed with which she shot to the top of most lists. Nobody mentioned her a week ago, but now she's on every list.

Corrigan is on my list because she is still being talked about with great frequency, more so than when she was being considered for first vacancy.

I like Garza because he is both Hispanic and a solid conservative. He was on he short list for the seat that went to Roberts, and was also interviewed for the seat that went to Clarence Thomas.

I'm going out on a limb with Alito, but he is the candidate who seems to be the most like Scalia (he has been nicknamed "Scalito"). Since Bush said that he was looking for someone like Scalia or Thomas, Alito has to be on the list. Jay Sekulow seemed to really like this guy when he was on Hannity.

I left off Janice Rogers Brown because she is (unfortunately) too controversial, and I omitted Harriet Miers because she is too close to the President.

Technorati Tags: ,