Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vanity: Why Gonzales may be nominated (BE AFRAID!)

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.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: attentiontroll; gonzales; judicialnominees; keepyourdayjob; leavefrtooidiot; lousyguesswork; moronicvanity; notnews; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last

1 posted on 06/22/2005 6:16:31 PM PDT by watsonfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow

Im guessing he gets nominated. The hispanic vote is all that matters folks. For better or worse for the rest of our lives.


2 posted on 06/22/2005 6:17:57 PM PDT by mthom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mthom

Well, in this case, Garza would be a much better nomination.

Hispanic and conservative.


3 posted on 06/22/2005 6:18:59 PM PDT by watsonfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow

I do believe you are right.....and God help us all if that comes to pass.


4 posted on 06/22/2005 6:19:10 PM PDT by Bombardier (Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Reenact, and stamp out farbiness!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
If Rove's goal was to lose Congress in 2006, then this would be one way to do it.

Yes, I'm sure that after a historic victory in '04, Karl Rove's overarching goal is to hand the U.S. Congress over to the Dems. /sarcasm
5 posted on 06/22/2005 6:19:26 PM PDT by hispanichoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
Why didn't you put your thoughts as a comment on the long, existing thread about this?

Or is burning up bandwidth your specialty?

6 posted on 06/22/2005 6:19:50 PM PDT by sinkspur (If you want unconditional love with skin, and hair and a warm nose, get a shelter dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
"two seats are "female" seats (just like Thomas's seat is the "African American" seat and for decades we had a "Jewish" seat).

Nonsense.

7 posted on 06/22/2005 6:19:53 PM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mthom

the new capital of mexico will be the conquered Reno, NV


8 posted on 06/22/2005 6:21:38 PM PDT by sure_fine (*not one to over kill the thought process*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

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.


9 posted on 06/22/2005 6:21:46 PM PDT by watsonfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
Won't happen, Look for Luttig, or McConnell to become the associate Justice and Scalia as the Chief Justice.

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 :-)

10 posted on 06/22/2005 6:23:11 PM PDT by MJY1288 ("Dingy" Harry Reid & "Disturbed" Durbin are a Waste of Tax Payers Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow

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%).


11 posted on 06/22/2005 6:26:15 PM PDT by NathanBookman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
You and churchillbuff seem to feel that every thought that runs through your head deserves a vanity thread on FR.

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.

12 posted on 06/22/2005 6:26:26 PM PDT by sinkspur (If you want unconditional love with skin, and hair and a warm nose, get a shelter dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
Let us all pray that this does not happen, as it would force me to leave the party.

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.

13 posted on 06/22/2005 6:26:47 PM PDT by Michael.SF. (Out of the mainstream..........................and better off for it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

arrogance or ignorance?


14 posted on 06/22/2005 6:28:00 PM PDT by NathanBookman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow

Emilio Garza


15 posted on 06/22/2005 6:28:41 PM PDT by atlanta67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; watsonfellow
sinkspur, I'm not a foe of yours, as you should know already!.... so hear me out....

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

16 posted on 06/22/2005 6:29:49 PM PDT by MJY1288 ("Dingy" Harry Reid & "Disturbed" Durbin are a Waste of Tax Payers Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
Not to worry. It wont be Gonzales, he just went through all of the BS involved in the AG position.

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!

17 posted on 06/22/2005 6:31:44 PM PDT by skimbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
I hope not! After that interview a couple of weeks ago, where he was asked a challenging question about pursuing some Political shenanigans, He said, "Let's not look back, let's go forward!"

I turned off the program and have added Gonzalez to the list of those whose appearance cause me to change the channel!

Please don't nominate him, Mr. President!
18 posted on 06/22/2005 6:33:53 PM PDT by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

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?


19 posted on 06/22/2005 6:38:00 PM PDT by watsonfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow

A SC Justice does not have to recuse himself or herself from anything.


20 posted on 06/22/2005 6:40:00 PM PDT by muawiyah (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson