Next Supreme Court nominee?

[solarbird]

Nobody really knows, of course, but the dark horse rumours are Christopher (Chris) Cox, former Representative from California, currently at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

VoteSmart says this - On the Issues says this

Both those URLs list voting records. He gets very high marks from fundamentalist organisations, but he did vote against the FMA - five years after voting to ban adoptions by gay and lesbians in Washington, DC.

I kinda doubt he's the pick - I don't think he'd unite the base firmly enough - but who knows? President Bush likes surprising people. Chris Cox would, indeed, be a surprise.

Comments

[partywhipple.livejournal.com]

Interesting. The call him a Libertarian Conservative. I guess I would fall closer to Conservative as well since I tend to be pro life.

[solarbird]

I don't think anybody getting a 100% from Concerned Women for America can really be libertarian, but maybe he's libertarian-leaning, except for that whole pesky women's right to our bodies thing. (Hi, guess who thinks the government shouldn't have any control over that, either! ^_^ )

[sir-quirky-k.livejournal.com]

Perhaps the libertarian element refers to the economy, i.e. that he's an advocate of small government and lower taxes, rather than his moral worldview (which seems closer to the Conservative element).

[sir-quirky-k.livejournal.com]

Damn, you've scared me again. If that voting record is anything to go by, I'd almost prefer Harriet Miers to him. At least she'd be too incompetent to actively cause damage. And if he's rejected for not being extreme enough, I'm seriously afraid.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Someone I was reading--I can't remember who--said that Bush's dilemma is that his likely picks are too conservative to be approved easily but not conservative enough for his base. Given the indictment of Libby and the ongoing investigation that is likely to hit Rove and/or Cheney, he needs a quick and easy nomination, and no one is going to give him that.

[solarbird]

At times I can see that, at times not so much. A lot of the populist and evangelical base absolutely, positively wants the Big Showdown, and may not be real happy with anything less. But there are also groups who will be happy with anyone sound who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade without, as one commenter I saw earlier said, "rub[bing] their faces in it."

To get the whole base, you need somebody like John Luttig, which would indeed trigger a full-out war. But maybe you can get most of it with someone less.