Posted on 07/03/2005 8:02:04 PM PDT by wagglebee
f President Bush chooses Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, that might well doom the GOP Senate incumbents, those on the religious right say, by infuriating the party's fervent, evangelical grassroots, Newsweek reports in the current issue.
"If the president is foolish enough to nominate Al Gonzales, what he will find is a divided base that will take it out on candidates in 2006," says Manuel Miranda, who heads a coalition of conservative groups called Third Branch Conference.
A former legal counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Miranda went on to threaten retribution against Bush's brother Jeb, should he decide to run for president.
"We're not Republican patsies," he tells Newsweek. "Jeb Bush can go sell insurance."
Newsweek Chief Political Correspondent Howard Fineman and Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Debra Rosenberg preview the battle ahead for O'Connor's replacement in the July 11 cover, "O'Connor's Odyssey" (on newsstands Monday, July 4).
"This is probably the most significant Supreme Court resignation and nomination we'll see in our lifetimes," says Jay Sekulow, counsel of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice. His counterpart at the liberal Alliance for Justice agreed. "The stakes are now enormous," says Nan Aron.
Also in the cover package, Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas and Contributing Editor Stuart Taylor Jr. recount the legacy of O'Connor and her years on the bench, where she was the classic swing vote in countless 5 to 4 decisions.
Newsweek also lists the likely contenders for O'Connor's successor: Edith Brown Clement, a Fifth Circuit judge; John Roberts, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C.; J. Michael Luttig, a Fourth Circuit judge; J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a Fourth Circuit judge; Janice Rogers Brown, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. and Gonzales.
There is only one Antonin Scalia, and I doubt that you can find any jurist in the United States who you can say with certainty is "like" Scalia. There are 7 justices sitting on the Supreme Court currently who were appointed by Republicans. They were all appointed based on their conservative judicial record and credentials. Only 3 of them turned out to be conservatives, though.
One of them, Justice Stevens, is the most liberal member of the Court. Another, Justice Souter, is the second most liberal member of the Court.
The reason why these guys were appointed under the mistaken belief that they were conservatives is simple: The Presidents who appointed them relied on their conservative credentials, and did not know them personally.
If you really want to know that the guy you're appointing is a conservative, then you've got to know him personally. You've got to know how he thinks. The reason for that is that conservative jurists believe they are bound by the law, irrespective of their own personal beliefs. As a result, their opinions and other writings do not reflect their personal views, but rather their interpretations of the law.
I don't know if Gonzales is a conservative, or just a "moderate." But I am certain that Bush knows, and that if he appoints Gonzales, then it's because he feels comfortable that Gonzales will live up to the description that Bush himself gave for the qualifications of a Supreme Court justice: One like Scalia and Thomas who interprets the law and does not make it.
It is juvenille. Remember who this guy is. He's one of those guys who thinks the "Nazi" ad on Moveon.org was pretty accurate.
I don't see how you can say that based on just two years on the Texas Supreme Court. Besides, your statement that he has "consistently upheld abortion rights" ignores that as a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court, he had no choice but to uphold abortion rights. The Texas Supreme Court does not decide whether there is a constitutional right to abortion in the US Supreme Court. He simply takes that as given by the US Supreme Court.
As I've said before, I am not arguing that Gonzales is a conservative. I am simply pointing out that you can't tell based on a 2 year record on the Texas Supreme Court. But I am sure that Bush knows whether he is a conservative. And if he appoints him, then I am certain it will be because he knows Gonzales better that you.
I care what they say. If Bush thumbs his nose at conservatives again, on this most important issue, there will be a Democrat in the White House in 2009.
When Gonzalez is not appointed, a lot of organizations are going to pat themselves on the back for accomplishing his non-appointment, when, in fact, the President wasn't going to do so anyway.
If you wait patiently for the name, and don't allow yourself to be manipulated, you will end up with lower blood pressure.
Exactly. And it seems that many people have forgotten that one of the first things GWB said/did after being elected in 2000 was that he would NOT rely on the ABA for his recommendations...if I remember correctly, it was one of the first attacks the media/dems launched against him.
Then you're not knowledgeable enought to participate in this conversation, because Gonzales has made his beliefs clear through the friend-of-the-court briefs that the DoJ has filed, or declined to file. He's pro-racial preferences and he doesn't care about the abuse of eminent domain. I guess for you, if Bush nominates him, it doesn't matter what he believes. For blind followers, Bush is right - even when he does wrong.
Nobody's debating that Bush knows gonzales well. But if Bush nominates Gonzales, that doesn't transform Gonzales into a conservative. Gonzales has made it clear to everyone who has heard him on the subject that he's not opposed to racial favoritism, and he's clearly not opposed to eminent domain abuses. If Bush nominates him, that will be a sign that Bush isn't a conservative on such key legal issues, either.
Show me where he's said those things.
Read the DoJ briefs in the Gratz and Grutter affirmative action cases. Also, note the fact that Gonzales DIDN'T submit a brief supporting the property owners in Kelo, but he DID submit a brief in another property rights case (Lingle v Chevron), arguing in favor of allowing local governments to engage in rent control. That's a liberal Republican for you.
whatta nightmare...jeb bush '08 or hillary '08.
28 years of 2 families is 2 much.
and in a country that rebelled against aristocracy, titles, and privilege.
the u.s. has replaced british aristocracy with politicians, hollywood and rock stars. ick.
First of all, Gonzales did not write the briefs in the affirmative action cases, and in fact wasn't even working for the DOJ at the time. I will agree that, as WH Counsel, he apparently overruled the initial DOJ position that affirmative action is per se unconstitutional, but it's a long stretch to claim from that he's a liberal, and that position was a losing position anyway. If you were going to file that brief, then you might as well not file any brief at all.
I'm more concerned about the abortion issue. But I don't agree with your conclusion that because he voted against the parental rights case in Texas, that means he would vote to uphold Roe. He was just following US Supreme Court precedent, which he is bound to do. I am not saying that he would vote to throw out Roe, but I have confidence that Bush would not appoint him unless he was certain that he would.
As far as the property rights case is concerned, I don't see how you can conclude that his failure to file a friend of the court brief in a case that was briefed long before he became AG proves anything. And I doubt very much that he had anything to do with the brief in the Lingle v Chevron case. He just became AG in February, and the case was argued less than 3 weeks after he became AG. The briefs are generally filed months, even in some cases years before the argument.
Really ..?? I thought he was the former Frist staffer who outed the "memos" from the democrats ..??
Many of "us" voted for Dubya merely because sKerry was running.. and for Dole because Clinton was running and for Dubyas daddy because Clinton was running too..
Where does it stop.?.. 2008 would be my guess.. Even a rented Mule gets tired of being abused.. and sits down.. Thats not to say there are some even DUMBER than a rented Mule.. There is.. and some are posting in this thread..
Judges of the "complicated" wing of the Republican party end up being surprises. When Judges are unprinipled, things get complicated and harder to read or predict. Read this speech by Janice Brown to the Federalist Society. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/pdf/JBrownSpeech.pdf Janice Brown is very uncomplicated, very straigth-forward, and very conservative. There is no need to worry with some one like her because she is fully grounded in principle. Can you imagine Souter writing that speech?
Bush is looking for a strict constructionist, which will only be ascertained by examination of the candidate's decisions and writings. We are unlikely to get any surprisesmin the candidate's future decisions...at least until he/she has been on the court a while.
You cannot guarantee how people will vote while on the Court. You can only do your best in picking one whose judicial philosophy seems to be closest to your own. After that, it depends on the judge's character.
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.