Why did the President decide to nominate Roberts for Chief? The first reason is obvious--the way things are shaping up, he seems like an easy confirmation.
But allow me to propose a second, more speculative possibility. A distinguishing characteristic of this President seems to be the faith he puts in his own personal judgements and assessment of people. Perhaps it is arrogance, perhaps it is that he truly is a better judge of character and ability than the rest of us, but he truly seems to believe that he has better judgment about others than anyone else around him. Or perhaps he wants someone who he thinks will be loyal to him and no one else (such as outside interests). It is similarly my impression that far more than most Presidents he relies on his personal assessments of people who he chooses for his inner circle, rather than their resumes or experience. Indeed, he chose Roberts notwithstanding his relatively short time on the bench. Roberts, of course, was selected by him as well. Let me suggest that Roberts therefore has the one necessary (but not sufficient condition) for being Chief--he had previously won the President's trust the first time around.
Recall, for instance, when he claimed to have seen into Putin's soul so as to be able to judge the man? It is also my impression (based in part on my time in the Administration) that when vacancies occur, this White House has tended to promote internally more than most administrations, even to the extent of promoting relatively junior people to relatively senior positions. When Roberts was appointed, it truly was a utter surprise, even to those very close to the White House who were reported to be closely involved in the selection process.
If I am correct in this assessment of the President's decision-making style, this would suggest that his next nomination would likely be from the crop of judges that he has appointed since becoming President. This would include Brown, Clement, or McConnell, but not more experienced luminaries such as Luttig, Jones, or Wilkinson.
Do you refer here to his nomination to the DC Circuit? I am a bit skeptical of this... I thought Roberts' name was floated in the early 90s when Bush Sr. was president. Given Roberts' credentials, renown, service to Republican administrations, etc., his nomination seems hardly surprising.
Bush's reliance on personal judgment is unique and noteworthy, but I don't think that it's his sole criterion in this process. Recall that Wilkinson and Luttig were on Bush's short list before (Wilkinson had that interview where Bush asked him about his health), and that while he may not have put them on the bench himself, it may still be the case that he trusts them or holds them as high in his personal judgment as those he picked himself. He didn't appoint Wilkinson or Luttig to the bench not because he didn't trust them, but because they were already there.
Clement is probably high on the list for political (demographics, views, age, confirmability) reasons. Trust is probably at issue here, but I doubt that trust differentiates Brown, Clement and McConnell from Luttig, Jones and Wilkinson.
I think Wilkinson may be out at this point because he would have been a more natural fit for the Chief position than Roberts.
It was a waiting game.
I wonder what all those "conservatives" that backed POTUS for reelection think of this - neither Scalia nor Thomas for Chief?
It smells like Robert's nomination was a morbid, wait and see, plan to replace Rehnquist.
Would caveat that McConnell belongs in the same group as Wilkinson more than with Clement and Brown on the "luminar[y]" half of the scale, if not the "measurement" part.
I would argue that this characteristic is more of a liability than an asset for the American people. Given the performance of the Directors of both DHS and FEMA, I would have preferred that the President had chosen persons based on their resumes and experience.
This characteristic has also been demonstrated by the President in choosing people who are willing to disregard the overwhelming preponderence of scientific evidence in matters such as global climate change, effective prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and new techniques in medical research.
Maybe I am being too idealistic, but I want a President who is not so selectively biased as to his own opinions on persons that report to him and on topics that he has demonstrated a poor understanding.
You did specifically leave open this question
However I would not characterize the second part of this question (ie that he is a better judge of ability) as normative. One could easily consider an objective test to confirm this. Further if one is positing that Bush is a better judge of ability than past performance (possibly embodied in a resume) I would be exceedingly skeptical. I can't really imagine that this assumption would be true of anyone but I suppose its not beyond the pale of possiblity.
If you had just stuck with the truly normative question of character then your presentation was accurate, but including the objective question of ability and treating it as normative invites rebbutal as there is some evidence on which one could base a conclusion.
I always thought that was a pretty idiotic way to judge a person.
The higher you are in the organizational food chain, the more experience you have, and--once you've eliminated all the obvious losers--everyone has essentially equivalent experience.
Anyone who does not understand this has clearly never done hands-on personnel management at the highest levels of a hierarchical organization.
And--before all you lawprofs go bananas--what's "collegiality" if not a placeholder for "people I would feel comfortable working with"?
She sounds like a pure libertarian.
Think about it; with his endorsement of Cindy Sheehan he has truly proven he can "reach across the aisle," a quality the Democrats value very highly...
Unfortunately for the Democrats, this isn't the end of their problems. They know that the President will have another nominee coming right down the pike after Roberts. And if they don't fillibuster Roberts, they will have a hard time doing so against a nominee who is not notably more to the right.
I think that the Democrats may have been thinking about drawing some sort of line in the sand with Roberts. But because of the way this is going down, it is the Republicans who are going to be able to do that.
All in all, I think quite a shrewd maneuver.
Sure, he makes mistakes. But, arguably, many fewer when it comes to appointments than have his predecessors.
I also see nothing wrong with the President's use of intuition when it comes to judging whether someone will be fit for a job or not. Let's be honest: nearly every federal appellate judge have the resumes to be Supremes. Many law professors and state supreme court justices are in the same boat. At that point, then, what's left? The intuition of the fellow who nominates, and that's George W. Bush. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's how the Framers set things up, along with the backstop of a Senate confirmation process.
The criticisms levelled at George Bush seem to be that he's perpetuating a sort of good old boy system. Bush seems less concerned with helping good old boys than with finding people who have good character. I fail to see the problem.
And I'm observing from the other side of the world, so he must have been a slightly obvious candidate over there. Just because only Washington people knew who he was didn't count against him, au contraire.
But I agree that the second nominee will be one of those originally floated, and would not be suprised if it was McConnell.
And I'm observing from the other side of the world, so he must have been a slightly obvious candidate over there. Just because only Washington people knew who he was didn't count against him, au contraire.
But I agree that the second nominee will be one of those originally floated, and would not be suprised if it was McConnell.
Todd is wrong about the selection of Roberts being utter surprise. The best reporter on the nomination process, Jan Crawford Greenberg of the Tribune, wrote repeatedly that Roberts was one of the top candidates in the weeks leading up to his selection. She cited a White House source for the info.
I also think Bush intended to select Roberts to replace Rehnquist eventually. I told my wife, a White House reporter, exactly that several times in the past month. After Rehnquist died, she agreed that the president was likely to elavate Roberts to chief justice. He did so a day later.
The reason is obvious. Roberts is one of the smartest conservatves judges in the country, a man with impeccable credentials, extensive political experience and an easy-going personality. While I am partial to Richard Posner, I thought Roberts was clearly the best choice among the candidates that Bush was looking at. You want someone who is persuasive and personable in the top spot.
As others here have noted, Bush was looking at some pretty impressive resumes after O’Connor announced her resignation. At that point, personal interviews clearly hold sway. I and many here have hired people. Naturally, we look for people with suitable personalities for the particular task at hand. I can get all the glowing recommendations in the world, but I have to believe I can trust and rely on that person. If I am not comfortable with them – if my gut is unsettled -- I am not going to hire them.
As such, I guess I trust my judgment more than those of others. I don’t think the president is any different in that regard.
As for predictions, I would like to see Michael McConnel chosen next, but I suspect the president will bow to pressure to name a woman. Edith Clement will raise the fewest political objections. I saw John Breaux and Bob Livingston both recommend her yesterday as a solid, respectable conservative.
I’d be curious to know, in this post or another created by the moderators, who they think is the most talented female conservative available. I assume she’d have to be under 60 years old and easily confirmable. That seems to rule out Jones and Brown. I like Mary Ann Glendon, but she would probably be considered too old and not conservative enough.
Some would regard our entering war in Iraq based upon alleged intelligence which was later proven to be wrong as being scandalous.
If it could be proven that the administration knew U.S. - as well as British and German and French and Russian -- "intelligence" was untrue, then you have "scandalalous" behavior. Indeed, even impeachable behavior. I'd entirely agree.
If the administration believed that intelligence, however, you merely have an action taken based on inaccurate information. That is not a scandal, at least to reasonable people. Unless the definition of scandal has shifted somewhat ... left.
Interview With A Bush/GOP/Roberts Cheerleader: It Did Not Go Well Once Austin Ruse Realized I Was Not Also Cheering
By John Lofton, Editor
Mr. Austin Ruse, president of the “Culture Of Life Foundation,” is one of the more enthusiastic cheerleaders for Bush Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. So, I was eager to interview him thinking he might know something about Judge Roberts that I had missed. Here’s that interview in its entirety. It did not go well once he realized I was not joining in his cheers for the nominee:
Q: I just got an email from you, Mr. Ruse, saying that next week you will begin asking people to call their Senators in support of John Roberts. Would you tell me, why should a Christian conservative support John Roberts?
A: John Roberts is a solid conservative. He’s a believing and practicing Catholic. We believe he’s an “originalist,” in terms of the Constitution, and we look upon him as a terrific addition to the Court, and eventually steering the Court back to some sense.
Q: Are you aware that in 2003 in his confirmation hearing to be an Appeals Court Judge he was asked very specifically if he was an originalist, and he said he was not and he had no over-arching method of interpreting the Constitution, that the situation determined how he interpreted The Constitution?
A: I haven’t seen that interview.
Q: Ok, I’m telling you what he said. So what do you think?
A: I would have to see that for myself.
Q: Where did you get the idea that he was an originalist?
A: Because I trust the President. The President said that he will select people for the Supreme Court who view themselves as judges and not legislators. I trust the people that are working around the President, both in the government and outside the government, who are working on John Robert’s nomination. I know people that know John Roberts. I believe he’s going to be terrific.
(snip)