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

[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.

[sirthomasthemore]

It seems that the republican strategy is to form a white republican and Hispanic co-majority. It seems like theyve given up on winning the black vote in favor of making it irrelevent through massive immigration, legal or illegal, from the south. I guess we'll see if that little gamble pays off.

---

Mt- I'm not saying you're wrong, this may in fact be GOP strategy. I just hope it's not so.

The coalition should be Hispanic conservatives who oppose illegal immigrants; and black faith based conservatives who agree with our culturally conservative agenda. They believe in the principles upon which the country was founded- and these faith based Black and Hispanic conservative Americans exist in sufficent numbers to make a difference.

To that end, we shouldn't be making the Supreme Court our platform by which to reflect the diversity of the GOP...the sole GOP criterion as to the Supreme Court should be "can we trust you to be a strict interpreter". On the other hand, diversity is much better handled through political appointments.

Thus, at end point, Justice Brown should replace Sandra. And in my view that's great for the Court, great for the party, great for America, and- trading Sandra for Brown would be the best deal since the Yankees got Ruth from the Red Sox.

[GopherGOPer]

Boy I hope you're right. I have a sneaking suspicion you may be, at least that's my hope as I read the Kristol article in the other thread.

It kept coming up in my head, what about Estrada? I'd love to see him thrown back into the democrats faces as Frist finally pushes the Constitutional Option.

[mthom]

The coalition should be Hispanic conservatives who oppose illegal immigrants.

A tiny fraction of hispanics oppose illegal immigration. Id like to believe a majority of hispanics are against illegals, and "polls" would tell you that they are, but the direct correlation of support from hispanics of a politician and support by that politician for illegal immigration tells a different story.

[sirthomasthemore]

I live behind enemy lines in blue state Ct, and although there is an "illegal" problem- I sense your located in an area that's much more effected- and so certainly, I defer to your experience.

But, assuming your intuition is accurate, then the Hispanic who is voting for a candidate based on that candidate's endorsement of illegals, likely isn't remotely concerned with who's on the Supreme Court.

So, again accepting your position, I'm certain we both agree that that courting the Hispanic vote through the Supreme Court appointment of a Hispanic is a futile gesture-where you suggest that the Hispanic is more likely to vote based on immigration policy (which seems plausible).

As you probably noted, my sole concern is to get a strict constructionist on the Court- and I wouldn't care if that person polka dot. So, Dubya can fill every Cabinet post with a qualified Hispanic if he thinks that's best, but don't nominate a Hispanic to the Supreme Court who is not a strict constructionist for the sake of diversity.

[Michael.SF.]

"regardless of how stupid the sentiment is."

OUCH!!

[YaYa123]

I can't wait to see who President Bush nominates to the Supreme Court. If we're lucky, he'll get to make at least 2 nominations before he leaves office. And folks, this is the main reason we wanted a conservative president.

I voted for George Bush because I trusted his judgement, I'm not about to second guess him on what is probably the most significant decision a president will make. He will make the best decision possible. He's not thinking short term, or one issue, or making one segment of his supporters happy. He's thinking the history of the country, what's best for the country, and yes, his presidential legacy too. He's not going to screw it up.

I've mentioned before, I think it would be very interesting if he nominated Joe Lieberman. Democrats would pressure Lieberman hard not to accept. I wouldn't mind Orin Hatch being picked. Orthodox Jew, Mormon, Orthodox Jew, Mormon...(I don't think there's a dimes worth of difference in the two of them. Both would make some good, and some disappointing judicial decisions.) Hey! this is one way to clear out the senate deadwood.

I would be thrilled, absolutely thrilled, if Bush picked Ted Olsen. I don't know where he stands on abortion or stem cell, or guns, or borders, I don't care.

I just don't see getting all rattled over this. Whoever Bush picks will be better than anyone a democrat president would nominate. We should be shouting for joy that this president finally gets to name a Supreme. And we should uniformly, support his decision.

[chaosagent]

So your point is that Bush should nominated people he hates, that have been disloyal to him.

Is that about it?

[Michael.SF.]

Wow you must be WAY up in the crows nest.

No, just a realist, especially as concerns the electability of the alternatives that are suggested here.

Consider:

1932-1993 --- Except for some brief periods of time in the 50's and in the 80's, the Democrats ruled the roost. Sure we had some Republican Presidents, but for the most part the Democratic agenda was on the fast track and we only served to occasionally slow it down.

1994-2000 --- We made some changes, we got Congress, but we were too damn slow in learning how to adjust to the front seat, so only minor gains were made.

2001-2005 --- We still have not learned we are in the pilot's seat and thus do not take advantage the opportunities afforded to us. You cannot lead those who refuse to follow (Congress)

And what is being proposed in this thread?

Constructive alternatives?
Combining forces with all Republicans in a united stand?
Strengthening our position to work together?

No. Instead it is proposed that we jump ship, dump Bush because he might nominate a Latino, and start looking for a true conservative to raise us from the ashes of moderation and lead us back to the GLORY days of Reaganism.

You tell me who that leader is and I will be glad to get on board. They had 60 years of unfettered control to take us to where we are today and many here want to jump ship after a relatively short period of time.

Sorry, but I still see progress, painfully slow at times, but it is forth coming.

[FreeReign]

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

All will be flocking to churches everywhere to pray that Gonzales is not picked, as it would force you to leave the party.