Posted on 06/22/2005 6:16:30 PM PDT by watsonfellow
There are a few reasons why I don't think Bush would nominate Gonzales to the SC next week (to replace O'Connor or Reinquist).
1) It would shift the court from a 2/7 female/male split to a 1/8. This would be bad politics, because, for better or worse, those two seats are "female" seats (just like Thomas's seat is the "African American" seat and for decades we had a "Jewish" seat).
2) It would anger the conservative base to a degree I don't think we've seen before. If Rove's goal was to lose Congress in 2006, then this would be one way to do it.
3) Gonzales would, due to his role in the WOT, have to recuse himself from many important cases.
4) Gonzales would get no support on the left, for his role in the WOT and War in Iraq, but would get very little to no support on the right.
Despite all this, Gonzales may be nominated for one simple reason.
Dick Cheney.
Think about it, Bush has a history of nominating or choosing people for jobs that he likes and have been loyal to him, no matter what the consequences. Bush puts loyalty above all else.
Let us all pray that this does not happen, as it would force me to leave the party.
Im guessing he gets nominated. The hispanic vote is all that matters folks. For better or worse for the rest of our lives.
Well, in this case, Garza would be a much better nomination.
Hispanic and conservative.
I do believe you are right.....and God help us all if that comes to pass.
Or is burning up bandwidth your specialty?
Nonsense.
the new capital of mexico will be the conquered Reno, NV
sinkspur if anyone on this site deserves the name of "troll" it is you.
You are mean.
You attack posters all the time.
You are not conservative.
You attack conservatives at every possible opp.
Why don't you bugger off.
Personally, I would like to see Janice Rogers Brown as the next Supreme Court Justice, and Florida Appeals Court Justice, Judge Sanders Sauls as my second choice :-)
It would increase Hispanics on court from 0 to 1 (infinity). That is a bigger increase than the offsetting decrease from 2 to 1 in women (50%).
To start a thread about the very same topic that has drawn over 200 posts just because you want to is the height of arrogance.
I do not understand why strengthening the Republican Party and increasing their position, with such an important consituency, would force you to leave.
Your being idealistic, but we live in a realistic world. We need to establish our priorities, rather then get side tracked by a specific issue or even a specific nominee.
You and I obviously have different priorities. As for me, leaving the Republicans would result in a benefit to the Democrats. That is my priority, to never do anything that would help a 'loyalist Democrat' to get elected.
arrogance or ignorance?
Emilio Garza
watsonfellow clearly posted this thread as a vanity and JimRob has dedicated a catagory of threads for just this kind of post by FReepers in good standing, ease up a little OK, this is a good vanity question.
Cheers,
Mike
It's going to be...TA-DA-Estrada! Yes, Estrada, back from the "ash heap of history. Estrada who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel with his bare hands and who, disguised as a mild mannered SC nominee will lead the GOP to the Nuclear Option that we've all been waiting to see.
Anyway, that's what I hope!
alas no.
for me and for quite a few other republicans, we did not join the party because of money or because we were thrilled with the idea of bringing democracy to the world or because we wanted more cache at the country club.
we joined the party because we want an end to judicial rule.
Look here.
7 of the SC Justices were appointed by Republicans, and four are wildly in favor of judicial imperalism (Souter, Stevens, O'Connor, and Kennedy).
What's the point of electing Republicans if this means that both parties appoint people who will vote to uphold abortion on demand as a constitutional right, gay marriage, etc....
I don't vote Republican because I like their parties or the elephant.
I suspect I'm not alone.
If GW can't appoint an originalist with a bigger majority in the Senate than any Republican president has had since the days of Coolidge, then pray tell, when will the Republicans start appointing them?
A SC Justice does not have to recuse himself or herself from anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.