Another Dem Backs Gonzales + More On J. Michael Luttig
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in General Politics, Supreme CourtFrom National Review Online:
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said he was contacted Friday by White House Counsel Harriet Miers, who sought his opinion on a replacement for O’Connor.Conrad said he told Miers he would support Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for the post, if he is nominated. He also said he suggested the president nominate Kermit Bye, a North Dakota native who sits on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Looks like Alberto is the man to replace O’Connor, with J. Michael Luttig possibly being the replacement for William “I’ll retire when I damn good and ready” Rehnquist.
Here’s a little more on Luttig (from In The Agora):
Luttig, like Emilio Garza (see Josh’s intro to Garza’s jurisprudence), has accorded deference to the basic principles of abortion rights, which might wrongly turn some political conservatives against him. Luttig approvingly cited statements from Casey and Stenberg that Roe v. Wade should be upheld, but he did so because of an admirable judicial philosophy. To be intellectually consistent with his view that judges should not inject personal affinities into decisions of law, Luttig’s logic had to proceed as follows: abortion, as a right granted by the Supreme Court, is unassailable as precedent unless or until overturned by the Supreme Court.
Pay close attention now to what I’m bolding.
In Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Gilmore, Luttig initially refused to enforce a District Court ruling that a Virginia law banning partial birth abortions was unconstitutional, because he believed that “the Supreme Court would ultimately hold that the Commonwealth’s restrictions on partial-birth abortions did not constitute an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose.” When the Supreme Court did the opposite by overturning Nebraska’s similar law in Stenberg, Luttig lifted the stay and joined the order striking down the Virginia law. Luttig’s opinion accompanying the order gives good insight as to his judicial philosophy, which incorporates thoughtfulness into his strict view of what the judiciary’s role is. It is that philosophy that seems to appear in every public discussion of Luttig, and is good reason to support him if he is nominated to the Supreme Court.
So, he ruled one way, then changed his mind when the highest court in the land ruled the other way. Not exactly what one would call an “activist” judge. I like that type of intellectual honesty. This doesn’t mean his rulings are all like that, but for such a hot button issues, this smacks of somebody whose moral compass is pointed in the right direction.
In any event, thoughts?
This entry was posted on Sunday, July 10th, 2005 and is filed under General Politics, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 28th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
typical