Why not? The rats have the atni-nuke: 
.
Posted on 07/01/2005 7:30:45 PM PDT by RWR8189
With a Republican Senate, President Bush has the chance to succeed where Reagan failed by getting a conservative constitutionalist confirmed to the Supreme Court.
ON OCTOBER 23, 1987--a day that lives in conservative infamy--Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by a Democratic Senate. Now, 18 years later, George W. Bush has the chance to reverse this defeat, and to begin to fulfill what has always been one of the core themes of modern American conservatism: the relinking of constitutional law and constitutional jurisprudence to the Constitution.
The restoration of constitutional government has been the one area in which modern conservatism has had the least success. From Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, conservative economic policies have been (more or less) pursued, and, when pursued, have been vindicated. From Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, conservative foreign policies based on American strength and American principles have been--when pursued--remarkably successful. One might even say that, in both economics and foreign policy, the degree of conservative success has been far greater than anyone would have imagined in 1980.
But in the area of constitutionalism, conservative goals have been thwarted, and the key moment of failure, from which conservative constitutionalism has never recovered, was the Bork defeat in 1987. For the last 18 years constitutional jurisprudence has continued to drift away from a sound constitutionalism based on the written Constitution and a proper deference to popular self-government in many areas of public life. Bork's defeat was both a cause and a symbol of this continued downward drift. Now, with one of the two swing votes on the Supreme Court stepping down, George W. Bush has a chance to begin to make constitutional history, as he is certainly attempting to do in foreign policy and, to a lesser degree, in economic policy.
There are two pieces of good news to keep in mind as President Bush ponders his choice. The first is that, by contrast with the situation in 1987, the Senate has a Republican majority. The second is that President Bush can choose from among many, many well-qualified conservative constitutionalists. Although President Bush is understandably fond of and loyal to his attorney general Alberto Gonzales, it's simply a fact that Gonzales does not have the stature of several other possible candidates. I now believe that, though tempted, President Bush will leave his attorney general in his current office.
The president has the luxury of choosing among such candidates as Michael McConnell, probably the leading constitutional thinker of his generation, now serving on the 10th Circuit; J. Michael Luttig, who has served with great distinction for 14 years on the 4th Circuit; the remarkable Janice Rogers Brown, with almost a decade on the California Supreme Court and a recent confirmation to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; as well as other federal and state supreme court judges--some of whom happen to be women (if that matters), and all of whom have strong credentials.
Most of the Democrats will fight any strong candidate. It won't matter if that candidate doesn't have a paper trail, because any nominee will have to make his or her general manner of constitutional thinking clear to the Senate--which thinking will almost inevitably provoke opposition from the left. But such opposition, however vociferous the rhetoric, will not be unstoppable. Indeed, looking at the current Senate, I do not believe that there are 40 Democratic votes to sustain a filibuster against an objectively well -qualified conservative nominee. And in any case a filibuster would be very difficult for the Democrats to defend.
George W. Bush's has been a Reaganite presidency in the areas of foreign and economic policy. He has impressively adjusted Reaganite principles to deal with today's challenges. Now he has the chance to once again follow Reagan's lead by nominating a jurist as impressive as Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. And now he has the chance to surpass Reagan--by getting that nominee confirmed.
William Kristol is the editor of The Weekly Standard.
That's exactly what did him in. Absolutely.
I want him too.That would be so nice.To hell with age he has got the goods and he is for us.
The only fillibuster-proof candidate is JANICE ROGERS BROWN. Plus, for the P.C. Crowd, which unfortunately includes Bush, this is a designated "chick seat", so Luttig et al don't apply. Can you imagine Brown, Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist as a guaranteed wall of right-wing muscle? I am drooling over this prospect. then all we have to hope for is that Stevens falls off his Jazzie, and we'll get #5 and cancel out that turncoat bastard Kennedy.
This Kristol guy must be smoking some really good weed.
Why not? The rats have the atni-nuke: .
McCain will nuke if he like the nominee. McCain is a rather self centered guy. Stay tuned.
McCain is on record as recommending that Bush refrain from nominating a conservative. He will do whatever he has to to please the rat media.
Bork was born March 1, 1927
I doubt that is the case, but I could be wrong. Just post the link, and I will say well, I was wrong. McCain is so loose cannon, that anything is possible. I thus have an open mind. McCain is unfit to be president. He lacks discipline. He is to impulsive, too self centered, and frankly too lazy. He is just not my cup of tea, and I once gave him 200 bucks. And so it goes. Just because maybe, sort of, McCain is sort of close to my ideologial perspective (sometimes, but often not these days), and thus the money I gave him, really isn't the point. It isn't at all, not when it comes to the Oval Office.
That's not what he said this morning on Fox.
McCain may be a 'moderate', but he's also a savvy politician.
Just watch, if the Democrats try to stop the nominee, McCain will lead the fight for them. He's set up the excuse to fight (if they fight, they'll have broken the "deal").
McCain's not stupid. He knows that he needs more base support to win the nomination in '08.
Just watch, he'll come out swinging for the nominee like Specter (who, not coincidentally, was up for re-election in '92) did for Thomas.
Wouldn't it be something if President Bush nominated Judge Janice Rogers Brown to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, and/or did a recess appointment for Robert Bork? I would prefer the recess appointment and a pronouncement that he wants to fill the Supreme Court without have to wait for the obstructionist senate- [Middle English senat, from Old French, from Latin sentus, from senex, sen-, old, an elder; see sen- in Indo-European roots.] to fulfill their Constitutional obligation to advice and consent on the President's nominations. That would definitely send a strong message...
_____________________________________________________________
My thoughts exactly, with Judge Bork serving as a recess appointment the Dems would soil their pinstripes in fear and could not confirm Janice Rogers Brown fast enough. I don't even think they would waste a few weeks ranting and raving about it to the MSM.
Conservative pundits for several years have been suggesting this sort of action. While the nominee is being held up, find a good solid conservative retired jurist or law professor who can afford to take a years' leave of absence and recess appoint him (or her). That way the Dems would realize that blocking the nominee would do them no good.
Janice Rogers Brown is an especially well-qualified candidate, she has already been exhaustively vetted and she is young and vigorous. There is no rule against promoting her on such short notice. What would the Dems have to say that they have not said already? Except splutter: "This is highly irregular."
I can't find the link, but I heard him say that Bush could avoid difficulty in getting his nominees approved if he nominated a "moderate", or something to that effect. Believe it or not, I'm not making it up.
Championing conservative SCOTUS nominees is probably the only way he can capture the base at this point.
Even if he does, he's too much of an opportunist to get my vote.
When Kristol started screaming for RUMMY to resign...I started my hate campaign toward him. I love Rumsfeld...
Kristol is the guy NPR likes to represent the "conservative" point of view.
'nuf said.
The only way I'd ever vote for McCain would be if he was running against Hitlery and I was heavily sedated and led by hand to the polling place
BOOKMK ping
Bork is 78.
I heard him say today that we can be assured that Bush will appoint a conservative. One of the good things about the gang of 14 deal is that the GOP Senators learned that we are paying attention to judical nominees.
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.