Bush and the SCOTUS

WSJ is free this week, well worth checking out. Not only fine writing, but fine thinking. If NYTimes had half a brain, never mind, they would hire some of the reporters away.

Supreme Court StrategyNovember 9, 2004; Page A18

The first post-election political skirmish is taking place over the Supreme Court, with President Bush getting lectures that his re-election victory means nothing when it comes to judges. Funny, that isn't what his opponents told us before the election.

Then they warned that the "future of the Supreme Court" for a generation was at stake, that if Mr. Bush won he'd have license to name more Antonin Scalias and Clarence Thomases to the federal bench. John Kerry said this explicitly. GOP Senate candidate John Thune, in South Dakota, and those in every race across the South made judges a central campaign issue. So now that they've won, why is Mr. Bush the one who is supposed to appoint different nominees than he named in the first term?

We'd say the President has an obligation, all right, but it's to the voters who elected him. His supporters sent a clear signal about the kind of judges they want nominated and confirmed. The Democrats who filibustered appellate court nominees for the first time in history are the folks who need to rethink their strategy.

To set the proper tone, Mr. Bush could begin his new term by re-nominating every candidate who was filibustered and is willing to go through the process again. All 10 nominees were highly qualified and had enough Democratic support to be confirmed if they hadn't been blocked by a liberal minority from receiving a full Senate vote. They include three women, an Hispanic, an African-American and an Arab-American. . .