Juan Williams pushes for Gonzalez on Beltway Boys

Fox News-Beltway Boys | July 2, 2005 | colmosby

[colonel mosby]

Apparently, liberals think Alberto Gonzalez has the best chance to be the next John Paul Stevens/David Souter. That is, a liberal turncoat appointed by a Republican President.

Juan Williams, the most reliable left-wing talking head on the Fox News Network, pushed for a Gonzalez nomination to the Supreme Court on this week's edition of The Beltway Boys.

Here's hoping that George W. Bush doesn't waste this golden opportunity to get another Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

It's time to go to the mattresses.

[A.B.Normal]

Well 'Mom I hope ypu are right GWB is starting to worry me.

[OldFriend]

The media just loves to create problems where none exist.

Problems for conservatives, that is!!!

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

I assume that if Bush thinks he's the right guy for the job, then he probably is.

Bad assumption, I would say.

Bush's Dad thought David Souter was the right guy. Gerald Ford thought John Paul Stevens........Reagan thought Anthony Kennedy.

What's needed is a proven conservative with a record beyond question!

Let's hope Bush learns from past mistakes.

[newzjunkey]

Not just NO on Gonzales but HELL NO.

[Soul Seeker]

I do not believe Gonzales will be appointed. I do think Juan or my opinion will not mean a thing. The President will make his decision according to principle no matter how people react. No one will know until he wants us to know.

Though I do believe if appointed he wouldn't live up to the the hype conservatives have annointed him with. I say this not because I feel comfortable about Gonzales, but I do feel comfortable that Bush shares the same committment to a Judiciary that doesn't overstep it's authority. Friendship would not trump principle.

I do find it interesting that not a few months ago, Gonzales was worse than the terrorists. Now Juan is promoting him. To me this suggests one thing. The Liberals do not have a mind of their own. If they note strong disapproval on our side, they automatically think it's a good idea. If they note strong approval, vice versa.

Take the filibuster gang pack. They initially were unhappy. Then they saw how unhappy most of us were, and suddenly they were in high spirits. Now they are miserable again. Whereas most people that were furious about that Judas pact, are still furious about it. Those happy about it, remained so. Our opinions did not fluctuate based on how the Democrats reacted or the aftermath.

[solitas]

...Levin...

Ewww! Ick! No! Talkshow whores need not apply!

[newzjunkey]

Bush knows him better than any of us.

Bull. We have his record from the Texas Supreme Court to know him by. He's anything but what we need on SCOTUS.

[PhiKapMom]

It is going to be a conservative judge -- Dr. Tom Coburn who sits on judiciary and is my wonderful Senator already recommended Pryor which told me the O'Connor replacement might just come from the recently approved justices. He said not to worry, it is going to be conservative!

[TheForceOfOne]

Liberal creeps like Williams cry the same old song and dance. When they don't want you to have something they will do everything in the world to stop you but when they feel threatened and they know they're going to lose, all of a sudden they want everyone to be rational and try to get you to compromise your position like he is doing now.

They know damn well that if they balance on the SCOTUS stays the same we lose. If they ever gain power again they will not compromise one bit with us, just laugh at us and say "You had your chance and you blew it" so its not my fault.

[savedbygrace]

Juan Williams is a horses a$$ and always has been. lol

You have insulted horses the world over.

[PhiKapMom]

President GW Bush was agains the nomination of Souter when his Dad made it -- doesn't that say something. He is also much more conservative then his Dad. You cannot compare the two -- I don't believe that GW if he were President in 1991 instead of his Dad would have stopped in Iraq. He is a total different type personality as from SoS Powell learned.

[purpleland]

It's funnier than Hell, in an aggravating way, that the Democrats and "liberals" are dictating to Bush who should be the next Supreme Justice. Isn't it enough for them that they have former ACLU associate Bader-Ginsberg on the Court? Bush has nothing to lose and would gain respect if he told the Dems to go to Hell, that he wants someone who will be absolutely true to the Constitution because the Constitution is THE FIRMLY SET FOUNDATION, and the Constitution is NOT "liberally" transmutable. Good GAD, I wish that man Bush would talk back with backbone, grit and guts! He owes no appeasement to these sociopathic leftist demagogues.

Abortion is NOT the litmus test. (I am so sick of that blasted whining issue!) A thoroughly exhausting oral exam proving the comprehension and strict adherence to the meaning and spirit of the Constitution should be the litmus test. Foundation principles do not evolve through arbitrary interpretations and according to the vagaries of the times. (The Frikkin Flighty French have revised their "constitution" 13 times since their last revolution. The French are still looking for founding principles!)

I feel my rant mode coming on...

[hophead]

"If Bush is smart, he will nominate Owen, Brown or Pryor. They are all filibuster-proof according to the "agreement"."

Exactly! I think it should be Brown. Get this one on the bench quick and now and when Renquist retires then the battle can begin. Schummer said there is no hurry to replace O'Conner because her letter said she would stay on "until her replacement is confirmed". That means in Schummers mind there is no time limit to confirm a replacement. It will be the left asking for more and more papers and records, then more, stalling. If one of the three you mentioned were nominated, the senators have already seen all the documentation they have requested.
Imagine if the dems try to pull this on a nominee who only a few months ago received those same senators confirmation to a lower court. This would be to this issue what
"I actually did vote for funding the war before I voted against it" was to the last election.
One other point. The left has already tried to smear the above three. They have already played their hand for the most part. The public will not tune in because its old news.

[Brilliant]

There are two problems with that.

1) No conservative has a great record because none of them has the opportunity to do what the Supreme Court does--reinterpret the Constitution. All of them are on lower courts, which don't do that. They've all got to follow the Supreme Court cases. So you have no idea how they will act once they are given that opportunity.

2) The difference between this situation and the other situaitons you mentioned with Bush, Sr. and Reagan are that Bush, Sr. and Reagan did not know their appointees personally. They were following advice of their advisors, and in fact, they were following advice which was based on the records of the appointees. That advice turned out to be wrong, which just proves my point. It's not enough to look at their records, or their party affiliation. You've got to know them.

But GW knows Gonzales personally. He knows him well. If Bush appoints Gonzales, it won't be because he misjudged Gonzales.

[small voice in the wilderness]

I hope you're correct. After 8 years of clinton crap and 5 years of democrats somehow managing to block and crush so much W.'s agenda, it's about time we, the supporters who worked to get W. elected, are rewarded with some fireworks! I don't want sparklers either. I want to ooooh and ahhhhh at the sight of conservative bombs bursting in air. And when it's over, I want to stand in awe at the power of ENOUGH, let's ROLL.

[mathluv]

Juan supporting Gonzales is enough for me to know we don't want him on the court.

[deport]

Having said that, it's undeniable that the rightwing has villified him and that he'd be an unpopular choice here. I'd rather Bush pick someone that we can all support.

---

I at one time thought Gonzales would be a pick by the President but today factions have totally decimated him to the point he'll not be a pick, imo. Unless, it is one that occurs late in his last two years or so of his Presidency.

[nickcarraway]

Schumer is hoping Hillary will get to name O'Connor's replacement.

[deport]

Apparently, liberals think Alberto Gonzalez has the best chance to be the next John Paul Stevens/David Souter.

---

Is that the Gonzalez that is in the CA DOJ? Why do they think President Bush would pick someone like him?

[Brilliant]

You're missing the big picture. On the Texas Supreme Court, he had no opportunity to reinterpret the Constitution. He was bound by the Supreme Court's decisions. If he had an abortion case before him, he had to apply Roe. It's as simple as that.

It has nothing to do with how he would rule if he was on the Supreme Court. In order to know that, you need to know his personal views. And you aren't going to learn his personal views by reading his cases. Those only apply the law as it is handed down by the Supreme Court.

Let me remind you that prior GOP Presidents appointed O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, and Stevens, thinking they were conservatives based on their records. They turned out to be liberals.