SCOTUS: no deal for Owens or Brown

With disbelief, I have read that Owens and Brown may be on the short list for the Supreme Court.

REPS will say that the filibuster deal holds here because the Senate has already approved them for the Federal Appeals court, so, how could they be unnacceptable now?

I say NO.
Here is the talking point: It took an unprecedented deal to get these two accepted as Federal Appeals court judges. The deal was for the Appeals court, period.

The deal is OFF if they try to get one or both of these odious choices on the Supreme Court.

Am I right about this?
Does anyone see another good way to say NO to these two?

•  There is an easy argument

  even if they wanted to argue that Brown and Owen are the benchmarks for "extrodinary" (which they're not, but lets presume they are), Dems could argue that they are the benchmark for "extradinary" for appeals court.

  By it's very nature, the definition of extroadinary for the Supreme Court is broader than what extroardinary  means for the appeals level.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:31:35 PM PDT

•  That's an easy one

  They've barely had time to warm the bench on the federal courts. There's no way they're ready for the Supreme Court yet.

  by musing85 on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:43:11 PM PDT

  •  another good argument

    Also, the idea that someone may not be bad for one post doesn't mean they aren't bad for all posts after that.

    Bolton is a classic example.  Part of their argument is "he's been confirmed 4 times before!" therefore, he should be confirmed this time.

    But if one takes that logic to it's logical conclusion, if some loony wing-nut is confirmed as the department of state assistant janitor, does that mean they are ok for any other position that that person may be nominated for after that?

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:46:34 PM PDT

  •  eh

    Both of them have served for years on their states' supreme courts.  Federal service is not required -- O'Connor didn't, Souter did for a minute, Rehnquist was never even a judge -- he was Asst Atty General first.

    by Adam B on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:50:11 PM PDT

    •  Sure

      And back in the day, you didn't even have to go to law school (Robert H. Jackson).

      But I tend to think the modern Supreme Court requires a little more experience at the federal level than just a couple of months' worth. Yet another reason why the Supreme Court is extraordinary.

      by musing85 on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 01:21:20 PM PDT

•  I've been concerned about

  this line of argument since the 'truce' --- I agree this should be a giant "NO" but don't know if the likes of Lieberman and company can be depended on under the circumstances.

  by Molee on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:47:16 PM PDT

  •  Well

    I know the point you're making, but Lieberman himself wasn't part of the deal, was he?

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:50:39 PM PDT

•  Face it, folks

  If Bush wants 'em on, they're going to get on.  For honor's sake, put up a fight and a fuss, but I don't think we will be able to win.  We lost this on November 7, 2004.

  by DCDemocrat on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM PDT

  •  John Bolton,

    anybody? what ever happened with him? oh yeah... fighting the wingers is a lost cause.

    by LawSkoolPunk on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM PDT

    •  you have a point

      but I think with regard to Brown and Owens, we threw in the towel with that compromise.

      by DCDemocrat on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 01:22:54 PM PDT

•  The big difference

  The big difference (theoretical) between Court of Appeals and Supreme Court is that the Court of Appeals judges are supposed to be bound to follow the law as it is established by the Supreme Court,  the Supremes actually get to decide the law that the lower courts then have to apply.

  by AlanR on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 01:06:58 PM PDT

•  Other Candidates More Likely

  I think Brown, Owens & Pryor are being mentioned as a sop to the right and to make the eventual nominee look less controversial in comparison. While Brown and Owens have considerable state court judicial expereince, thus negating any argument based on their just being confirmed for the Court of Appeals, there's enough controversy about them that Bush can't be sure they'd get through the Senate.  

  There's a large contingent of more experienced Appeals Court judges that were easily confirmed and would just as easily be highly rated by the ABA. I think the choice(s) will come from the group which includes Alito, Clement, Garza, Jones, Luttig, Roberts, McConnell, Sykes & Wilkinson, and perhaps a few others. They are the Republican equivalent of Ginsburg & Breyer, i.e. prominent Appeals Court judges who were confirmed by large margins. Unless something unexpected comes up, I don't think they can be successfully opposed, and even an unsuccessful attempt at blocking them might have some unpleasant political costs.

  by Realist2004 on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 02:43:14 PM PDT

•  Our best leverage

  lies in Armando's sig...the SCOTUS is extraordinary. That has to be repeated until everyone believes it...although from the polls I've seen, almost everyone already does believe that. Brown and Owens were okay (after that stupid deal) for Appeals, but they need to prove themselves there first before they can be considered for SC...repeat repeat repeat.

  by Elise on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 03:35:09 PM PDT