More on Justice Jones

As I have pointed out, an Edith Jones nomination hardly appeared on the radar screen right after the O’Connor resignation, possibly because the press wasn’t fully prepared for this scenario.  But today the W$J lists her with Brown as a leading possibility because of the gender issue.

Tom Goldstein says the nominee will likely be a woman, but goes for Priscilla Owen. While Owen might make political sense, can we hope for more?  Nothing against her personally, but how about a justice with 20 years of federal appellate experience?  Not that this is likely to move Bush or Congress, but on the merits, Choi and Gulati’s “tournament” assumes significant appellate experience as a ticket for entering the tournament. At least we can have a debate that focuses on Jones' demonstrated legal talents and ideas rather than irrelevant hot-button personal issues (in Owen's case, I see the Enron contributions as the big stupid issue of the day).

The interesting thing about Jones is that she combines social conservatism and business experience. I recently pointed out the unfortunate divergence between these objectives. Jones will take heat here because she appears to be solidly anti-abortion.  But I think it would more accurate to characterize her as pro-law, and that includes respecting precedents over personal opinions.

Update: Jonathan B Wilson has some interesting quotes from Judge Jones on litigation reform.

Update 2:  The W$J confirms my observations that the press was initially caught short by the O’Connor resignation, and Edith Jones’ stock is rising as attention turns toward women:

When speculation in recent weeks centered on a possible Rehnquist retirement, the short lists circulating around Washington contained mainly conservative men. But the departure of Justice O'Connor has shifted the calculus to raise the profiles of several women candidates. Most often mentioned are the "two Ediths" who serve on the New Orleans appellate court.

Comments

[jim rhoads (vnjagvet)]

I agree with you that a justice who has some knowledge of and experience with business matters is necessary to provide balance on the Court.

No one on the court in recent memory has had such experience and it shows. In the significant number of cases involving business there is little apparent appreciation of the problems of running and sustaining a business faced with the increasing complexities of advancing technology and international competition.