Even though Mayor Koch was a liberal on the typically social causes, I always thought he was a good man and level headed on the broad picture of national defense and terrorism.
Posted on 07/06/2005 5:11:49 PM PDT by wagglebee
The great battle to select the next United States Supreme Court justice has begun.
In my view, the president's candidate should be confirmed by the Senate, provided the president's party is in the majority and the candidate is of good character and professionally qualified. The positions of the candidate on hot-button issues, e.g., abortion, gay rights, the death penalty, the environment, etc., so long as those positions are within the mainstream of the president's party, should not bar the candidate from being confirmed.
No one opposing the president's pick on key issues should be expected to support the candidate, but preventing an ultimate vote on the nomination should not be tolerated. Most, if not all, senators acknowledge that they may not ask a nominee for the office how they would decide a particular case, either one heretofore decided by the Supreme Court or one created hypothetically, to determine the philosophical position of the nominee on a future court decision.
The Republican Party – the president's party – is quite conservative at its core. Therefore, the president will likely select a candidate who will please that conservative center. Were the Democratic Party in the majority, its vote could determine the fate of the president's candidate and therefore it would have the opportunity and right to influence the president's selection process. The Republican majority in Congress will limit the Democrats' ability to influence that process.
Supreme Court nominees selected by presidents for having views on hot-button issues similar to their own on occasion turn out to have been misread by the president or, when in office, reverse their views.
Leading examples are that of Justices Earl Warren and William J. Brennan, who were appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower called the appointment of Warren "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made." The Warren court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Warren, is remembered as a great liberal court that issued decisions that advanced the cause of civil rights in this country. Justice Brennan disappointed Eisenhower as well with what Eisenhower perceived as his left-of-center views.
This week, Hope Yen and Todd Purdum of The New York Times devoted extensive articles to listing some appointments to the Supreme Court who were disappointments to their sponsors, including Justices David H. Souter (George H.W. Bush), Harry Blackmun (Nixon), John Paul Stevens (Ford), Anthony Kennedy (Reagan), Tom C. Clark (Truman), Salmon P. Chase (Lincoln), Harlan Fiske Stone (Coolidge) and Felix Frankfurter (FDR).
So far as I know, the justices cited above are all highly respected for their decisions by Supreme Court pundits. Interestingly, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, appointed by President Reagan, is described in various articles as having moved to the center after her appointment, when she was perceived as far more conservative than her ultimate record.
I believe that most, but regrettably not all, public servants ultimately seek to do what is best for their constituencies. My prediction is that the president will nominate Alberto Gonzales, currently serving as the U.S. attorney general, who previously served as chief judge of the Texas Supreme Court by appointment of then Texas Governor Bush. I believe that Alberto Gonzales will be confirmed.
There is no question but that he is in the mainstream of the Republican majority. Indeed, that status is strengthened by the fact that the extreme conservative wing of the Republican Party is now marshalling its forces to stop Gonzales' nomination and confirmation.
President Bush cannot run again. His prime consideration in anything he does is how it will affect his legacy. He is not concerned with his immediate popularity, except as it bears upon next year's congressional and Senate races. His selection of Gonzales, who, if confirmed, will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, will help Bush's legacy and the Republican Party during the next elections.
The attorney general has done well in his appearances before congressional committees and occasional interviews, particularly a recent interview with Charlie Rose. He conveys reasonableness, integrity, intelligence and courage.
The Hispanic constituency is growing rapidly in nearly every state in the Union. Hispanics are and will continue to be wooed by both major parties. Like every other constituency, they measure support by how they are received and respected as a group.
The appointment of a black, Justice Clarence Thomas, to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush was very important to black voters, even if black leaders did not accept him because he is a conservative. The appointments of two women to the Court, Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, were extremely important to women voters.
The appointment of a Hispanic to the Supreme Court will cause that group, which is expected to become our largest group of citizens in the not-too-distant future, to think kindly of the political party that made that happen. Those who oppose the appointment will, I believe, suffer at the polls.
and he endorsed W in 04.
I said it before, and I'll say it again. If he wants a Hispanic nominee, he need look no farther than Miguel Estrada.
& if Estrada's no longer interested, Emilio Garza...
Well stated by Koch. These are the old standards that were generally adhered to by both parties in the past. Note that Clinton's nominees, Ginsburg and Breyer, both got a vote and both were approved.
Now we ought to expect fair play from the Dems for our nominees, but I'm not holding my breath.
Really? Did selecting Clarence Thomas impress his minority and help the Republican Party in the elections?
Nominating Gonzales will be blood in the water, the Democrats will feel (with some reason) that they have successfully intimidated GWB, and having done so, they'll content themselves to call the appointment a major blunder by a President who doesn't know any better, a regrettable choice---and Lord help us if they can dig up anything on Gonzales, even a hair (a la Thomas) to lynch him with. It doesn't have to be true. It didn't have to be true in the Thomas hearings. It just had to be reported ad nauseam.
Oh, they'll confirm him---after they've ruined him. Why is this so hard to understand? They'll do it to anyone GWB appoints. He cannot enhance his legacy with these people barking and howling against him. Trying to appease them will only damage his legacy among the only people who might preserve it---the conservatives. He cannot please Democrats; he can only please Republicans---and should he fail at that, then as Dick Cheney said of Chairman Hao, "Maybe his mother loves him..."
The president should select the man or woman who he believes will interpret the constitution the way it was written and take into consideration the writings of the founding fathers as to their intent. PERIOD.
Koch has always called himself (and I usually agree) a "liberal with sanity".
Even though Mayor Koch was a liberal on the typically social causes, I always thought he was a good man and level headed on the broad picture of national defense and terrorism.
I like Koch and respect his honesty and patriotism!
He has also been a fair minded judge.
The answer is NO. The blacks I work with call him "Uncle Thomas."
Any black GOP member is an Uncle Tom.
That's too bad. I have sure been wishing we had a few more like him on the court. For that matter, I'd fire all of them and let Thomas run it. Save some money on salaries and probably the whole damn county.
It's a shame that Justice Thomas was so maligned. I was raised in a small town not too far from where Anita Hill grew up, so I listened carefully to her story and the evidence. When it was concluded, I was convinced that she lied about him from beginning to end. He is a good, hard-working justice, and I'm inclined to support him for Chief Justice if he is inclined to accept.
Good for Ed, but he has made it no secret that he will support Hillary.
Even Bork was given a vote.
Interesting how it always seems to be the Republican presidents who get shafted.
Years ago I regularly listened to Ed Koch's radio show on WABC, New York. The Mayor hosted a good, upbeat show. He was enthusiastic and very pragmatic. One time Ed said something that has always stuck with me. He said: "If you agree with me on 7 out of 10 issues, then vote for me. If you agree with me on 10 out of 10 issues, see a psychiatrist!"
It is sage advice, and I sometimes wish it was more closely heeded around here and among Republicans in general.
Regards,
LH
He did include Frankfurter (FDR) and Clark (Truman). Also, John Kennedy appointed Byron White, who turned out to be a conservative.
He did include Frankfurter (FDR) and Clark (Truman). Also, John Kennedy appointed Byron White, who turned out to be a conservative.
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.