I'm at a hostel computer in Seattle right now, so I can't make this too long. Just had to catch up on the last week or three that I haven't been writing.

Let's start with (soon to be) Justice John Roberts. My prediction for his career on the Court is long and solid. He has every indication of being a rational, Burkean conservative legal mind. Sure, he once wrote a brief against Roe. But the important part is that he wrote that brief while he was in the Justice Department for Bush I; he was just reflecting the policy of that administration. As has been mentioned a few times, John Roberts is an "advocate." He even filled in for a colleague on an environmental protection case before taking his seat on the Federal bench (that's right: for environmental protection). I would even give 1 to 2 odds that when push came to shove, he'll be a vote for narrowing but not overturning Roe.

Much more entertaining, of course, is the Rove debacle. Seeing Scott McClellan whimper under the pressure of the White House press corps was one of the best recorded moments in recent memory. The fact that it appears Rove leaked Valerie Plame's identity is an excellent consolation prize after the extremely boring, long-awaited revelation of Deep Throat's identity. Mark Felt? Who the Hell is Mark Felt? Karl Rove! Now there's a name I know!

Oh, and props to the current administration for hastening its Court decision in light of unsavory activity by top aides. Brilliant political move, and (no joke) barely anyone noticed.

Anyway, there's my stream of consciousness to cover a couple weeks of news. Sorry I don't have anything to say about the London bombings. That would require thinking more than I'm prepared to do right now.v

Enough with all the nonsense

I'm still standing by my Garza prediction for Chief Justice. In the meantime, O'Connor's seat really is up for grabs. There are so many dang possibilities. Redstate is reporting a possible Cornyn appointment, but they later backed off. So nobody really knows.

I would say Edith Clements is the natural choice. She has a limited paper trail and has demonstrated a liking for a very narrow reading of the Interstate Commerce Clause; she would be an effective stealth conservative nominee, defusing some of the insanity that will certainly ensue in the double-whammy bloodsport we'll be witnessing in the next few days.

By the way, the O'Connor nomination enhances what I said in my last post: Bush pretty much has to nominate someone directly to Chief Justice. There is no way activist conservatives (or, for that matter, the Bush Administration) could handle the elevation of anyone but Thomas or Scalia, and that would be an untenable position for Bush and Senate Republicans; one of the three would almost definitely not make it.

So there you go. My new blog has been pretty much exclusively devoted to Supreme Court stuff. Maybe in the next couple days I'll write about something else.

But probably not.