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.
Bill Kristol is a major RINO.
This is NOT 20/20 hindsight, but the Republicans were fools to NOT use the nuclear option when they had the chance.
I agree with your first paragraph there, cb. And, I'd like to see Miguel Estrada or Ted Olson as the nominee.
Not unless Bush and the Republicans want to make the biggest mistake since George HW Bush raised taxes. This would be even a bigger mistake, reminding the Republican base for decades that those running the Republican party were liars with no regard for their base.
Anyone have a summary of Gonzales' past decisions? Is he truly anti-Second Amendment?
White House phone and fax lines: 202-456-5587 Mr Rove 202-456-2461 White House FAX line 202-456-2930 Tim Goeglein White House Liasion
I've got a feeling they will balloon a couple of middle of the roaders to test the waters and see if the social conservatives can do the dirty work and drag the middle to their side of the aisle. If the social conservatives can't do that, then expect a moderate (to freepers) to be nomimated. But I firmly stand that Bush will use the mouthpiece social conservatives to do the dirty work, being the mouthpieces and take the heat if they go over the top. This will hinge on how well the social conservatives handle the issue. Frankly, O'Conner if a wash will be no gain. My guess is the next nominee will be more conservative.
Does anyone have any proof or inkling that Bush will nominate Gonzalez?
I trust President Bush will come to the same conclusion.
(Is there any way to take a poll on the forum?) I don't know enough about Gonzales to say one way or the other where he stands I heard he wasn't actually very strong on abortion, and if he's not strong on guns either i say we need someone else.
It won't happen of course, but a man can dream.
Excellent insight.
It could be that the SenateGOP have setup the Dems.
by agreeing on no filibuster.
As usual, Michelle is on the mark. No to Gonzales, Yes to a strict constructionist, original intent, I-believe-in-the 9th & 10 Amendments, limited view commerce and general welfare clauses, no-incorporation doctrine candidate. (How's that for a mouthful?)
One could argue that this is the TRUE "war on terror". Terrorists on the bench.
bttt
"I don't know enough about Gonzales to say one way or the other where he stands"
Reason enough to be worried about this guy. In 1976, a relatively unknown Jimmie Carter didn't want to tell the American people very many details of his views, preferring instead an appeal of "Just trust me." And then, of course, there was David Souter, whom we knew very little about. We know how those two turned out.
We cannot afford to have someone nominated that we don't really know much about. This position is far too important for that.
You should explicitly mention the second amendment. Other than that, I agree with you.
And this is the standard argument of everyone who opposes term limits. The only problem with it is that IT HASN'T WORKED!!!
Incumbency creates too many vested interests focussed on "keeping their gravy train running" to easily get incumbents "thrown out by the voters", and the longer the incumbent remains in office, the bigger that "constituency" gets, and the more heavily the "corrupting influence" weighs on the office-holder. Thus far, I can't think of even ONE example where that has NOT been the case.
"Hard-wired" term limits fixes that problem nicely.
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.