The official line from James Dobson and his Focus on the Family is that there is no shortlist of judges they’d like to see on the U.S. Supreme Court. Bruce Hausknecht, a legal-issues analyst for Dobson, has said, “No shortlist has been developed and we have not been asked for input by the White House. Dr. Dobson has consistently stated that it is the president’s prerogative alone to select his Supreme Court nominee.”
Nevertheless, in case there was any doubt about the right’s readiness for a vacancy, Dobson’s group published a list this week of several possibilities, which was in turn distributed to Focus’ members.
* Michael McConnell, a judge on the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. McConnell is not only a conservative, but the former University of Chicago law professor has long been considered one of America’s most distinguished legal minds by both liberal and conservative law professors.
* John Roberts, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since 2003, who is considered a top prospect.
* Samuel Alito, Jr., a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, also considered a top prospect.
* J. Michael Luttig, a Texan on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond since 1991, known to the current President Bush.
* Edith Jones, a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, who came close to being elevated to the court by then-President George H.W. Bush.
* Larry Thompson, who served as the number two man in the Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft.
* Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States until last summer. Olson represented George W. Bush in the 2000 post-election Bush v. Gore case. His wife was a passenger on the 9/11 plane which crashed in Pennsylvania.
* Emilio Miller Garza, a judge on the 5th Circuit, who also narrowly missed selection as the first Hispanic justice in the 1980s.
Focus on the Family described the names as “excellent candidates.” If a vacancy should arise later this month, keep these names in mind.
For that matter, there are three other names that may be slightly more familiar to political observers who may also get a push from the far right for the highest court in the land.
For instance, Pat Trueman, a consultant to the Family Research Council on legal issues and former chief of the Justice Department’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section under the elder President Bush, said the compromise deal worked out last week on judicial nominees gives President George W. Bush a unique opportunity.
“I think one option the president has,” he said, “is to nominate for the U.S. Supreme Court one of the individuals who will have just been approved for the appellate court –either Priscilla Owen, who is now on the Texas Supreme Court; or Janice Rogers Brown, who is on the California Supreme Court; or perhaps Bill Pryor.” […]
“These three individuals were given a pass by the so-called ‘Gang of 14’ in the U.S. Senate,” Trueman said. “The 14 agreed that none of these three would come under the rubric of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would trigger a filibuster.
“So, we know, first of all, that those three nominations will likely pass the Senate — one already has — and second, we know they are not subject to filibusters. So if the president wanted a ‘safe’ nomination to the Supreme Court that would get through the Senate, any one of those three would be a safe choice.”
I see the thinking here, and the strategy is coherent, but if the right thinks Dems would accept any of these three for the Supreme Court because of the Gang of 14 deal, they’re just not paying attention.