Miers Withdraws...

Angus told us so three full days ago. Whom will Bush pick? I'm guessing it's one of these four: Michael McConnell, J. Michael Luttig, Samuel Alito, or Janice Rogers Brown.

Results: Press Conference Predictions

Well, I'd give myself a 7.5 I got some key buzzwords and captured a lot of the main points. Before the next press conference, I will further hone my psychic powers:

PREDICTED: "..The American people are gonna see that Harriet is a top rate legal mind....I have worked with Ms. Miers. I've come to know what a sharp and....careful legal mind she is...how she........Lemme just say that the reason I picked Ms. Miers is because she's the kind of person who interprests the law not makes the law. And that's what I look for when I'm looking for a judge or a justice....someone who's not going to, you know, legislate from the bench. And the American people are gonna see that, just like I saw it in the years I've worked with Ms. Miers."

ACTUAL: "Let me -- please, please. I've known Harriet for over a decade. I've worked with Harriet. She's a woman of principle and character. She's highly intelligent....Secondly, she knows the kind of judge I'm looking for -- after all, she was a part of the process that selected John Roberts....And there should be no doubt in anybody's mind what I believe a judge -- the philosophy of a judge. And Harriet Miers shares that philosophy.....She is -- she understands the law, she's got a keen mind, she will not legislate from the bench."

PREDICTED: "...the fact is anybody who knows me knows I'm not a fan of litmus tests...I don't judge nominees on the basis of one factor, one..qualification...That goes for opinions on cases like Roe and that goes for other qualifications as well."

ACTUAL: "I have no litmus test. It's also something I've consistently said: There is not litmus test. What matters to me is her judicial philosophy; what does she believe the role -- the proper role of the judiciary is, relative to the legislative and the executive branch. And she'll be asked all kinds of questions up there, but the most important thing for me is what kind of judge will she be? And so there's no litmus tests."

PREDICTED: When we look back, are there things that coulda gone better? You bet. A ca-ta-stro-phe of that mag-ni-tude is somethin you can never totally plan for. And so, what I told the Congress and my staff is that we're gonna see what we need to do to get it right if - God forbid - anything like that happens again.

ACTUAL: One area where I hope the country takes a look at is the responsibility between federal, state and local government when it comes to cat-a-stroph-ic events, highly-cat-a-stroph-ic events.....There's always going to be frustrations in the immediate aftermath of a storm.

PRE-sidential Press Conference

So anybody can analyze a press conference after it's taken place. More fun, I think, is to guess what the man himself will say just before. To that end, here are my pre-sidential predictions on how Bush will phrase his answers to a few key questions when he goes on the air in just 15 mins. We'll compare my predictions to the actual afterwards....

On charges of cronyism....

"...As to the charges of so-called cronyism, (insert reporter name here),....that is, the idea that somehow Harriet Miers isn't....qualified because she happens to work in the White House....The fact is that's simply not true...The American people are gonna see that Harriet is a top rate legal mind....I have worked with Ms. Miers. I've come to know what a sharp and....careful legal mind she is...how she........Lemme just say that the reason I picked Ms. Miers is because she's the kind of person who interprests the law not makes the law. And that's what I look for when I'm looking for a judge or a justice....someone who's not going to, you know, legislate from the bench. And the American people are gonna see that, just like I saw it in the years I've worked with Ms. Miers.

On charges of gender affirmative action....

"(insert reporter name here), the fact is anybody who knows me knows I'm not a fan of litmus tests...I don't judge nominees on the basis of one factor, one..qualification...That goes for opinions on cases like Roe and that goes for other qualifications as well. I don't use a so-called "gender litmus test" or a "race litmus test". In other words, I don't use a test that says if you're a woman, or if you're black, you've got a better shot at being the next justice. I evaluate people based on their qualifications. I am also mindful, (insert reporter name here), that diversity is an important thing, a wonderful thing, that we have here in America. I am proud to nominate one of the most accomplished women and lawyers this country has....But you see, I interviewed and considered potential nominees from all kinds of backgrounds...all walks of life. And I picked the one I thought would do the job best. I'm confident the American people are gonna see why I made that decision real soon".

On Katrina....

"We just got hit with not one, but two of the most devastating hurricanes in our history. I toured the region three times and I saw the devastation...total devastation...lives destroyed and cities and towns ruined. And, you know, hindsight is 20-20. When we look back, are there things that coulda gone better? You bet. A ca-ta-stro-phe of that mag-ni-tude is somethin you can never totally plan for. And so, what I told the Congress and my staff is that we're gonna see what we need to do to get it right if - God forbid - anything like that happens again. We're gonna see where we did wrong and where we did right and make changes accordingly. And that will help us prepare not only for hurricanes...it'll help us prepare for other......events like terrorists attacks and other disasters. And lemme just say, that we've already seen the positive results of our looking back. We saw with hurricane Rita how an effective federal response can complement state authorities. And that's our role...to help the states when they need it."

Thank you, and God bless you.

And the Next Supreme Court Nominee is....

As we get closer to finding out whom Bush will nominate, Alberto Gonzalez, Michael Luttig and Karen Williams have surged ahead in bidding on tradesports.com.

My personal guess is Maureen Mahoney, a partner at Latham and Watkins and former Rehnquist clerk.

On a related note, Mansfield Fox has posted answers to my Pick 3 sweepstakes.

Links!

After far too long, I have added a section to the sidebar of my blog called "Blogs Ranked Highly", which includes links to my favorite blogs. Enjoy. More to come...

High (Court) Odds

Feeling lucky? Did all that thinking about my post below make you feel like you have a hunch about the Supreme Court choice of George W. Bush? Place a bet on the Supreme Court Futures Market before his pick is made public!

Pick 3

I'd like to get a little game going. Think of three people whom George W. Bush should consider for Sandra Day O'Connor's spot on the Supreme Court but who haven't been mentioned much (or at all) in the press. It can be more a wish-list than a prediction, but anyone who picks a future nominee gets a special prize. Here are my picks:

1. Frances Frago Townsend - She's Bush's current Homeland Security advisor and a lifetime government lawyer/prosecutor who formerly held several high positions at the Department of Justice. As one of Bush's closest confidants, she has won the President's deep respect and trust over the last four years. As a Democratic appointee (holdover from the Clinton administration) she'd have broad bipartisan appeal.

2. Mary Jo White - This tough-minded former prosecutor is now a partner at Debevoise and Plimpton. She may not be "bookish" enough for the role of Justice, but she's a Columbia Law grad and few could doubt that she's smart. Though Clinton appointed her to the her post as U.S. Attorney, rumor has it she's been disenchanted with the Democratic party of late.

3. Sonia Sotomayor - Appointed by Bush I to the District Court, elevated by Clinton to the Circuit Court, she's also likely to face easy confirmation by Democratic Senators while simultaneously allowing Bush to check off the woman and Latina boxes. The only problem is she too may not be conservative enough either for Bush or for his conservative base. That may be why she's not mentioned on any short lists.

I'm not sure that I'd nominate any of these three, but I'd certainly take a close look at their resumes. As you might have noticed, all of my picks assume 1) that the person should be a woman and 2) that a compromise moderate pick is better than a conservative ideologue who will further divide the country with a bitter confirmation hearing. I'm pretty confident that with Roberts already on the court and one or two more justices likely to go before Bush's term is out, the court is in no danger of going radically liberal any time soon. Why not take the opportunity to show some civility?

Death in the Afternoon? Mansfield Fox?

I Told You So

Had the Republicans followed my advice five months ago, we would have avoided the mess that unfolded today.