Posted on 07/01/2005 8:28:34 AM PDT by 68skylark
Bill Kristol called it on O'Connor's retirement.
Let's hope he is wrong about her replacement:
President Bush will appoint Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to replace O'Connor. Bush certainly wants to put Gonzales on the Supreme Court. Presidents usually find a way to do what they want to do.
As National Review put it:
[T]he president has to know that conservatives, his supporters in good times and bad, would be appalled and demoralized by a Gonzales appointment. It would place his would-be successors in the Senate in a difficult position, forcing them to choose between angering conservatives by voting for Gonzales and saying no to him. If Democrats attack Gonzales — and it is reasonable to expect that they will attack almost any Bush nominee — conservatives will not rally to his defense.
The president has led an admirable campaign for a reformation of the federal judiciary. If he names a conservative nominee, he will have a battle on his hands. But it is a battle worth fighting.
The excellent SCOTUS nomination blog has links to profiles of other leading candidates.
Maybe Gonzalez goes down in flames as the sacrificial nominee, with Owens or Brown waiting to pick up the easy confirmation vote. I could live with that.
It's really difficult to tell how a potential SCOTUS appointee might act until he gets on the bench. For one thing, he's bound by the Supreme Court's prior decisions in virtually everything he does up until that point, so the fact that he follows them proves nothing. And any intelligent conservative who has any hope of getting to the Supreme Court will be somewhat obscure about what he's really thinking until he gets onto the Court. Any justice with a demonstrable record of conservatism (particularly on abortion) has little hope of actually getting onto the Court.
If Bush appoints Gonzales, I'm guessing that it means he's satisfied that Gonzales will vote to overrule Roe if the opportunity arises. However, wishy-washy Bush may be on some issues, he is certainly not wishy-washy on abortion.
I know the perfect candidate. A black, latino, conservative, woman, with a brilliant mind, and impeachable credentials.
Anybody out there know of one? Of course, the Dems would have to destroy her, because, after all, they're only interested in Liberal Supreme Court Judges being appointed, not minorities. Libs may picture themselves as "tolerant", but they're not that tolerant.
Cry Havoc! Let loose the Dogs of War!
If President Bush is really interested in making a landmark appointment (e.g., first Hispanic, first female African-American, etc.) he should nominate someone who isn't even a lawyer. I've often said that we could use a few clear-thinking engineers or accountants on the Court!
Bush is not going to appoint someone who will have a short S.Ct. career. Ashcroft is too old, and has health problems.
me too.
He is to wishy washy.
The LAST thing we need is another so called swing vote.
I anticipate the spineless republicans will cave into the democrat myth in exchance for a non existent nothing promise for a future "play nice" from democrats.
It is the nevel chamberlin scenario.
This is an acid test alright, an acid test to see if the moderate GOP senators will back their President's important decisions. If the moderates go squishy they should be defeated at the polls.
I've got to respectfully disagree, I think. There are a few people who have consistently shown they're interested in merely interpreting the law, not making the law. They're good, solid conservatives, and one of those people deserves this promotion.
If Bush puts Gonzales on the SC then the liberals will have the majority for the foreseeable future. It would be a shame if Gonzales was approved.
If Bush thinks he has a fight to face in the Senate (and the big clue will be that the Dems will accept Gonzales with open arms) he has seen nothing yet.
I believe that enough of us realize that Gonzales would be a disaster for the conservative (or Constitutional) movement and that Bush would see the Senate lambasted by phone calls and faxes to vote the man down.
It was all over Washington two years ago that Sandra Day O'Connor wanted to retire. It was also common knowledge in D.C. that after the 2002 election she told Bush she wanted to retire. Bush asked her to stay until after the 2004 election. She agreed. Bush felt certain he could get a better appointment confirmed in 2005 than he could in 2003.
Everyone in DC. knew this was going to happen. They were just waiting for an announcement. The Sandra Day O'Connor retirement in 2005 was printed in a lot of wire reports in 2003 and 2004. Kristal had no inside knowledge that every member of the Washington Press did not know a year or two ago. Everyone from Novak to Krauthammer printed stories that O'Connor was staying on until 2005 at the urging of President Bush. It was posted several times here on FreeRepublic.
To think that Bush would confide in anyone who would tell Kristal anything is beyond belief.
You can bet the farm that Kristal knows less than the average bear. You can also bet that the president has known for some time what was going to happen with retirements at the court. You can also bet the strategy to handle it has been decided for some time.
It is also true that the handful of people who know what the President is going to do have told no one. Insiders do not leak in this administration. The president makes sure he knows what various people know. Leakers soon find out that they were told stuff that only they were told. When they leak they get caught.. and if they get caught they are no longer insiders.
At the upper levels this administration does not leak. That is one of the reasons the media hates them.
The Democrats have to be careful not to do something that would cost them Rino and Dino support. If they do they will get the nuclear option and BAM.. they will be facing 20 years of conservative court. But if they go easy.. they will be facing 20 years of almost as conservative a supreme court. If they do block a Bush appointment no Democratic president will ever get a liberal confirmed again.
Republicans can't play hard ball first. But if deomcrats break the gentlemens agreement, then Republicans are free to do the same. I look for some Democrats to fold. I look for some of the RINOs to get a back bone. They were looking to play in the media sunshine of moderation.... only to feel the cold steel of the conservative knife pressing against their political backside.
It will be interesting to see what happens next.
Have you noticed that increasingly Trent Lott has become the spokesperson for Republicans in the Senate. I don't think Frist is calling any of the shots. I think the Senate Caucus decides and Lott is chosen as its spokesperson.
More and more the media is going to Lott and less and less to Frist. That is a sure indictaion of who they think is in control. It is a very interesting situation. It is certainly a different situation than I have ever witnessed.
Give me an example.
Since none of them are currently on the S.Ct., they must follow the S.Ct's idiot decisions. So I don't know how you would distinguish a lower court judge who disagrees with those decisions from one who doesn't.
Certainly, they don't write opinions which criticize S.Ct. decisions.
Usually, the assessment that they are conservatives is made in reliance on non-judicial statements. But statements that they make outside of the context of a judicial decision really don't tell you too much about how they are going to rule in a legal case.
" EXACTLY why I oppose term limits! We should repeal the 2 term limit on the President.
Without the possibility of reelection, he is free to carry out his real priorities with no fear of repercussions."
You wouldn't be honking that crap if Bubba was in office, or worse, Hillary. We don't need no freakin' dictatorship. FDR was as bad as it should get.
Sure. The lawyers over at powerline.blog have written extensively about this, and have recommended several lower court judges who are outstanding conservatives -- not the kind of people who will "grow in office," like Justice Souter, to become liberals.
One of their most recent post, naming several candidates who have are "solid [and] thoroughly vetted," is here:
Theoretically true, but practically speaking it's not. The Court did not follow even very recent precedent when they overturned the Texas sodomy law, but they weasel worded the decision in such a way that it appeared not to directly violate that precedent, but it did.
Uh, been there, done that, and it was worse--see Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Keep term limits on the presidency, and impose them on the Congress, and all state and local elected officials. "Two terms and out!"
Robert Bork is no conservative. Not no, but HELL NO to him or any "clone". Nominate REAL conservatives
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.