Posted on 07/13/2005 12:48:23 PM PDT by CHARLITE
George W. Bush is loyal to his buddies. The gooder the good ol' boy, the better. It's one of the president's most endearing traits.
He stood up for Alberto Gonzales on his way to the G-8 summit in Scotland, scolding the "extremists" on the right who are suspicious of the attorney general's credentials as a conservative nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't like it when a friend gets criticized," the president told reporters at a stop in Denmark. "I'm loyal to my friends. And all of a sudden this fellow, who is a good public servant and a really fine person, is under fire. And so, do I like it? No. I don't like it at all."
This may or may not mean the president intends to nominate Mr. Gonzales to the Supreme Court. George W. is known to be partial to his friends, and a lot of conservatives are afraid that's what his Valentine for Alberto is about.
Sen. Harry Reid, the leader of the Democratic minority in the Senate who ordinarily thinks the president is "a loser" and looks for opportunities to say so, swiftly endorsed Mr. Gonzales, figuring that he's the best the Democratic left is likely to get. Other Democrats, who would ordinarily throw up at the very mention of the man who wrote the Guantanamo torture memos, are falling into line.
Mr. Gonzales himself has been campaigning for something with the enthusiasm of a Democratic alderman on the south side of Chicago. He has gone courting at the Heritage Foundation, Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation, Grover Norquist's tax-cut breakfast, Laura Ingraham's radio talk show, and even to Baghdad to sup with the troops. He wants the conservatives to know how much he loves them, at least for now. Naturally all this campaigning doesn't have anything to do with panting for a seat on the Supreme Court, because that wouldn't be seemly. Whoever heard of an unseemly Washington lawyer?
But the buzz is confusing. George W. said not long ago that he wants to find Supreme Court nominees like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, but some of his most faithful friends say that he's talking like that was then, and this is now. The faithful conservatives are always suspicious that the Republican biggies, who prize moderation except in the heat of an election campaign, is about to dump them. And it's true that "respectable" Republicans, so called, invariably sniff the air when the conservatives enter the room, as if they expect to be overwhelmed by bad breath or body odor. Most of the talk about Mr. Gonzales' qualifications is that (a) he's the president's good buddy, (b) he's an identifiable Hispanic, the current object of White House affection all sublime, and (c) maybe most important, Harry Reid and the Democrats think he might be "moderate" enough to suit them. They think he has the potential to "grow" up to be David Souter. They're terrified the president will choose a fully grown nominee, and they're willing to take somebody they despise to avoid getting someone they really hate.
But what is a "moderate" judge? Mr. Justice Scalia, the man the president described as his model justice, offered his opinion earlier this year in a speech to the Woodrow Wilson Center. "What is a moderate interpretation of the text?" he asked. "Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean? There is no such thing as a moderate interpretation of the text. Would you ask a lawyer, 'Draw me a moderate contract'?
"The only way the word has any meaning is if you are looking for someone to write a law, to write a constitution, rather than to interpret one. I think the very terminology suggests that's where we have arrived: at the point of selecting people to write a constitution, rather than people to give us the fair meaning of one that has been democratically adopted ...
"When we are in that mode, you realize, we have rendered the Constitution useless, because the Constitution will mean what the majority wants it to mean."
Majorities change, of course, but the Democrats don't want to hear that, and echo the president's description of fair criticism of Mr. Gonzales as "attacks." But none of the criticism smacks of the personal. The "attacks" have actually been "civil" and "dignified." The president's loyalty to his friend is nevertheless exemplary, and doing something nice for a friend is, well, nice. But it's hardly necessary to nominate a pal to the Supreme Court to demonstrate loyalty and affection. He could just send flowers and a box of candy.
Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Washington Times.
Scalia nailed that one.
This is just chocked full of 'goodies'
In 800 words this article has managed to completely avoid stating what it is that they don't like about Gonzales.
They don't like him. I get that. What are his positions that they don't like?
Alberto Gonzales may be a nice guy and the best of friends with Bush, but what is his judicial philosophy?
If all he wants to do is follow some other judge's precedents, has no interest in following the intentions of the Framers, and wants to change society from the bench, what do we need him for?
That was the problem with O'Connor, and we don't need another O'Connor on the bench.
He has a collectivist view of the Second Amendment, because he's worried about his brother who is a SWAT agent. There's a jpg floating around with a quote from him paraphrased; "We're doing the best we can do to secure our boarders." He also stated that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. There's others.
Perhaps another deja vu - all over again
"Read my lips, I'm pro-life"
I like Janice Rogers Brown,First.
In other words, he's a typical, sleazy, lying politician without an ounce of integrity?
He fails to keep his promise, he'll go down as one of the most despised, failed Presidents in history.
Thanks. In other words, middle-of-the-road, conformist thinking. Probably a good team player, probably not our first choice for a Supreme.
I want an "originalist", I don't want a middle-of-the-road guy, not as a Supreme. Based on some things I've seen written by her, I would like to see someone like Janice Rogers Brown. I would like a Bork, or Bork's younger brother.
"Originalist you say? Well look no further than Michael J. Luttig!! "
Uh...no, he's a white male. We couldn't do that, now could we?
/s
Wouldn't want to discriminate!
/sarcasm
We need a real right winger. A true conservative....someone in the vein of the founding fathers.
The whole attitude of the party elites ie "they have nowhere else to go" will be their downfall. I'll just stay home. I vote based on principles, and if a candidate doesn't meet those then I simply won't vote. I see FReepers chime in all the time to statements like mine and say YOU REALLY WANT HILLARY TO WIN, DONT YOU..or something like that.
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.