DBWI: George H.W. Bush loses re-election in 1992

I realize that the Senate is 59-41 in favor of the Republicans, but I do believe that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be infinitely more difficult to replace than Clarence Thomas. Thomas is a conservative powerhouse whose legacy will continue with his successor, but Ginsburg? Imagine the protests with replacing her. The protests when Amul Thapar replaced O’Connor, who become more liberal leaning in her later years, were something to see. When Miguel Estrada replaced Stevens, it was worse because it was a conservative replacing a liberal icon. When Amy Barrett replaces Kennedy, it was worse than the previous two combined because she was a strong conservative while Kennedy was a moderate who was liberal on social issues. But replacing the liberal deity that is RBG with a conservative? God, I can only imagine...

In order to replace Ginsburg, he must do three things:

  • Nominate a woman
  • Nominate a moderate
  • Nominate someone quiet
These three things are the main criteria he will fail without fulfilling. A woman as to keep diversity, a moderate as to appease the liberals (although they will still protest nonetheless, this will make it a little less severe), and somebody quiet as to not raise any controversy. This person will be compared, forever and always, to her predecessor, and she must be aware that any hint of trouble will make her a target in the media.
 
In order to replace Ginsburg, he must do three things:

  • Nominate a woman
  • Nominate a moderate
  • Nominate someone quiet
These three things are the main criteria he will fail without fulfilling. A woman as to keep diversity, a moderate as to appease the liberals (although they will still protest nonetheless, this will make it a little less severe), and somebody quiet as to not raise any controversy. This person will be compared, forever and always, to her predecessor, and she must be aware that any hint of trouble will make her a target in the media.

Fair enough. However, does he truly need to nominate a woman? Amy Barrett’s confirmation back in September actually added one woman to the Court’s composition, and adding a man would go back to the composition it was previously at.

A moderate is definitely a smart choice, but I feel that even will cause controversy. Remember that Ginsburg is the Liberal icon on the Supreme Court today. Ever since John Paul Stevens resigned 9 years ago, she has taken the reigns as the darling Justice of the Democrats. A moderate conservative might still generate protests.
 
In order to replace Ginsburg, he must do three things:

  • Nominate a woman
  • Nominate a moderate
  • Nominate someone quiet
These three things are the main criteria he will fail without fulfilling. A woman as to keep diversity, a moderate as to appease the liberals (although they will still protest nonetheless, this will make it a little less severe), and somebody quiet as to not raise any controversy. This person will be compared, forever and always, to her predecessor, and she must be aware that any hint of trouble will make her a target in the media.

Again, many people are upset by the 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. It nearly came to a head in the 5-4 decision in Obergefell vs. Hodges that struck down the constitutionality of gay marriage. I fear that a judge, no matter how moderate they are, would be welcome on the bench if they are nothing but someone who is liberal.
 
I read the shortlist of candidates the White House released a few weeks ago after Ginsburg was treated for cancerous tumors in her lungs. The choices, I feel, don’t bode well with Democrats, especially the Justice Democrats elected three months ago.
 
I read the shortlist of candidates the White House released a few weeks ago after Ginsburg was treated for cancerous tumors in her lungs. The choices, I feel, don’t bode well with Democrats, especially the Justice Democrats elected three months ago.

Let's suppose Ginsburg hangs on until 2021. Looking at the Democrats who are running or likely to run for President, who might they appoint to replace her?
 
Let's suppose Ginsburg hangs on until 2021. Looking at the Democrats who are running or likely to run for President, who might they appoint to replace her?

Here’s the thing with that: remember that Democrats haven’t appointed federal judges since 2008, over 10 years. Many of these candidates by the time a Democratic President theoretically takers office, they might be in their early 60’s at least. I suspect that Democrats might want to appoint someone who is younger to avoid a situation like Ginsburg’s again. Some judges come to mind:
  • Elena Kagan of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Sonia Sotomayor of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
  • David Hamilton of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Nina Pillard of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Albert Diaz of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Sri Srinivasan of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
The only problem with this list is that Srinivasan is the only judge who will be under 65 by the time a Democrat could be President, and he is considered a moderate given his time working in the Jeb Bush White House in the office of the Solicitor General.
 
Here’s the thing with that: remember that Democrats haven’t appointed federal judges since 2008, over 10 years. Many of these candidates by the time a Democratic President theoretically takers office, they might be in their early 60’s at least. I suspect that Democrats might want to appoint someone who is younger to avoid a situation like Ginsburg’s again. Some judges come to mind:
  • Elena Kagan of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Sonia Sotomayor of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
  • David Hamilton of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Nina Pillard of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Albert Diaz of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Sri Srinivasan of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
The only problem with this list is that Srinivasan is the only judge who will be under 65 by the time a Democrat could be President, and he is considered a moderate given his time working in the Jeb Bush White House in the office of the Solicitor General.

And some of those are weak too - Sotomayor is a diabetic, it nearly killed her a few years back.

As far as who Huntsman should nominate, as a compromise measure, somebody really Libertarian might work.
 
Look I liked George Bush, and I think the Clinton presidency would have been a car crash. Having said that, don't you think that Clinton would have been politically cagey enough to pull out of Somalia. I know we can argue about the merits of fighting the warlords, but part of me doesn't think we wouldn't have been bogged down there in that police action for 7 years.

Then, if we were to have withdrawn maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Don't forget that Osama said he was inspired to hit America due to our unwillingness to withdraw from Somolia.
 
Top