Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
President Bush said Wednesday that he would consider nominating a woman or someone with no experience as a judge to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. “We’re considering all kinds of people — judges, non-judges,” Bush said, adding that he also is open to picking a woman — something that Laura Bush said she hoped he would do. Talking to reporters following a Cabinet meeting, Bush declined to say when he would announce his decision and said that if he knew when he would begin interviewing individuals he probably wouldn’t say. “We’re still consulting with members of the Senate, and I anticipate continued consultations,” Bush said. “But the American people can rest assured that I understand the seriousness of this responsibility and I will name someone who will bring dignity to the court, someone who will be able to do the job and someone who will sit on that bench and interpret the Constitution and not use the bench from which to legislate.” Some senators have suggested that the view from inside the federal courts might be too narrow for a prospective Supreme Court nominee. Conservative activists, who are hoping their favorite federal appellate court justices, argue that without an established record, a justice wielding a gavel could be a wild card. Going outside the federal courts would bring some humanity into the often-criticized decisions of the nation’s highest court, says Senate Judiciary chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa. As a federal judge, you “look at records, you read cases, you have very little contact with people,” Specter said after meeting with Bush on Tuesday. “But if they had a little more practical experience and didn’t work so much within the footnotes and the semicolons, you might have a little different perspective, and I’d like to see that added to the court.” The justices themselves have indicated to the Senate that they would welcome non-judges, said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, who attended the same meeting with Bush. “I know they see a number of benefits that could come to having somebody from outside the judicial monastery,” Leahy said. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist never served as a judge before he was named to the court. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Bush should look to GOP senators for his court pick, and he’s suggested several he thinks fit the bill: Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Mike Crapo of Idaho. In a sign that the White House may be open to a lesser-known candidate, White House political adviser Karl Rove asked Graham in a telephone call last week whether he knew of anyone the White House should be considering whose name hadn’t been mentioned. Graham suggested Chief Judge William Wilkins of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop said. More Supreme Court justices have been picked from outside the federal judiciary than from the ranks of the courts since 1900. Statistics show that 33 of 61 justices confirmed since 1900 were not federal judges at the time of their selection. They include: � A law school dean: Harlan Stone in 1925. � Two governors: New York Gov. Charles Hughes in 1910 and California Gov. Earl Warren in 1953. � Four attorneys general — William Moody in 1906, James McReynolds in 1914, Frank Murphy in 1940 and Tom Clark in 1949. � Six attorneys: Joseph Lamar in 1910, Louis Brandeis in 1916, George Sutherland and Pierce Butler in 1922, Abe Fortas in 1965 and Lewis Powell in 1971. Seven members of today’s Supreme Court were federal appellate judges at the time of their appointments. O’Connor was an Arizona state appeals judge and Rehnquist was an assistant U.S. attorney general. Some conservative partisans say that Bush should be careful if he picks someone from outside the federal courts. “You don’t want somebody who confuses politics and law and who thinks that his job as a Supreme Court justice is to make political decisions and not apply the law,” said Wendy Long, lawyer for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network. Conservatives already are upset at what they call the federal judiciary’s streak of “judicial activism,” and some believe that putting a non-judge on the court would not help, said John Eastman, professor of constitutional law at Chapman University School of Law and the director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. “I would be surprised if the president would make that move, considering the history and what the fight’s about: judicial activism versus constitutional interpretation and strict constitutionalism,” Eastman said. With a non-judge, he said, “you don’t have somebody who has proven themselves to adhering faithfully to the law on the bench.” Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.