Advise & Consent: The Clinton-Hatch Example

To: Josh Marshall
Re: Justice O'Connor's Replacement

This passage from Orrin Hatch's autobiography ought to be publicized as widely as possible, in regard to the appointment of the next justice (Kevin Drum recently commented on it. I believe I first saw it mentioned in a Timothy Noah column a couple of years back):

Note: If I had to recommend a conservative, it would be Michael McConnell. He wins megapoints for opposing Bush v. Gore, which was not only good judgement but also evidence he can keep his head in a partisan atmosphere. And he's a shameless intellectual. This is more important than almost anyone allows. It's not just a qualification. He's on 'our team' in a deeper sense than he's on Bush's.

Of course, I share Kaus's view that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, & that it would be a good thing for the Democratic Party, and progressive politics generally, if it were.

Those who don't probably want Gonzales, and I think they'll get him. Bush values personal loyalty to a fault, and doesn't mind outraging people with his appointments -- he seems to enjoy a fight (to a fault). Now that he's safely reelected, the Right has no influence over him except the power of persuasion. They may have to start commiserating with liberals over his pig-headedness.

I wouldn't mind Gonzales/McConnell for O'Connor/Rehnquist. It would move the court a little to the right, and improve it intellectually. Garza is my bugaboo, and pretty high-up on Bush's list, unfortunately, as he satisfies the Right's desire to appoint a hack, along with the political desire to appoint a Hispanic.