The Easy Way Out?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


If Bush wants a quick Supreme Court confirmation with guaranteed conservative results, he need look no further than the Capitol building. Fourteen senators have gone on to serve in the Supreme Court (though it’s been almost fifty years since the last ex-Senator Sherman Minton left the court) and at least a half-dozen current ones have been mentioned as potential picks. USA Today has a conservative judicial watcher giving the nod to John Cornyn of Texas as an O’Connor replacement. The same article puts Arizona’s Jon Kyl in the running.

But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (the anti-abortion Senator now charged with saving Roe) has said that neither would meet his standards. Both serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, so they’d have to recuse themselves from that round of consideration. On the other hand, the Republicans would still have a 9-8 majority in the committee, and would have no problem reporting either one, even in the unlikely event of serious Democratic objections. One obvious line of defense that the Dems would have against Senators as nominees would be to argue that it’s inappropriate to send conservative politicians to the court—remember middle school civics lessons about that special non-politicized branch of government. But on Tuesday, Harry Reid left that argument dead on arrival by, yes, suggesting that Bush nominate Mike Crapo (ID), Mike DeWine (OH) or Mel Martinez (FL).

David Corn makes for worthwhile reading today. He suggests that Utah’s Orrin Hatch is another possible choice, putting six names in the mix. But Corn also notes that the upcoming Supreme Court nomination battle is already stacked in Bush’s favor, and that he has little to lose by going for the conservative gold. So Sherman, your record is probably safe.

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate