Posted on 07/08/2005 12:27:20 PM PDT by dangus
With O'Connor already announcing her intention to retire, Rehnquist leaving us with only a question of when, and the strong likelihood of 85-year-old Stevens or Ginsburg retiring by 2008, I propose that Bush should consider nominating Anthony Kennedy to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Don't get me wrong: I'd love to watch Nancy Pelosi's head explode as Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia were promoted. But the viscreal thrill of it aside (and yes, I know I'm a junkie when I can refer to the "visceral thrill "of a Supreme Court nomination), it wouldn't do much. "Chief Justice" has become merely an honorary title.
The Democrats are clamoring for nominations in the mold of O'Connor. Kennedy, while having a different focus than O'Connor, is just about exactly as conservative or liberal as O'Connor. And, until a third vacancy occurs, Kennedy will be the swing vote on just about every issue, since Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens are all essentially left-wing partisan hacks, and hopefully Renquist's and O'Connor's replacements will join a staunchly conservative bloc with Scalia and Thomas. So, Kennedy will be the de facto chief of the Supreme Court anyway.
Essentially, it buys Bush a perception of centrism at almost zero cost. The public perception will be of a perfectly balanced court being created by Bush: four liberals, four conservatives, and the Chief Justice as the ideological centrist. And yet, Bush will have steered the court as hard to the right as is presently possible.
Comments?
Comments......how about no.
What is the name of this mysterious destructive disease that constantly compels conservatives to try to make liberals happy.
We (conservatives) won. Liberals lost. Bush gets to put 3 or 4 conservatives on the highest court in the land to reestablish the Constitution of the United States as the law of this land. Liberals....you may flail and convulse all you want...it will entertain us....All of your piss and vinegar will not turn back the clock. Yours is a failed ideology, and morally bankrupt view of the world, and is the first cousin to the soviet system which is in the ashheap of history. You have always been on the wrong side of history.
Because all the great ideas have already been thought of already, by such religious "kooks" as Moses, Jesus, et. al.
You sure you're on the right forum?
I shudder to even think about elevating Kennedy. He has already Peter Principled out.
Same here! I couldn't even believe someone on here put this up either.
That is not leadership and courage -- that is abject stupidity and that person would be NO conservative Republican.
LOL, me either. I'm more a Vince Lombardi kind of guy, three yards and knock them on their butts. Forget the double reverse end around quaterback on a post pattern crap.
Is this FR, or DU ?
Or as Woody Hayes would say -- three yards and a cloud of dust! I am with you -- right up the center and pancake the opposing lineman!
There has been a lot of DU comments on here today. Funniest thing I heard all day was when I was out in the car and had Rush on -- he said the doom and gloomers are the liberals. I cracked up laughing after the conversations some of us have been having about the doom and gloomers! :)
Here's an even wackier idea: Roger Gehrwinkel for local Dog Catcher! Go ahead. Put him on the Spot.
But this thread takes the cake!
I think that it's long past due, to instate a test ( on history and how our government REALLY works )here, and having to be passed with a minimum of an 80%, in order to be able to post anything to FR.
LOL!!! I will second the idea for a test! I am not sure some of these people even passed a Government course not to mention have little knowledge of history. Scarey!
Congratulations! National Review online stole your idea and repeated it almost verbatim, they did this about an hour after you posted it.
http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/068968.asp
Thanks much for defining your type of hero, I hope you will reconsider.
Can you read? Do you know what an abomination is? What makes you think I favor of any of things? I just said it didnt take much if any courage to stand up for what everyone you know believes in.
That is not leadership and courage -- that is abject stupidity and that person would be NO conservative Republican,/i>
Your missing the point. I wasnt passing judgement on what was being said, just trying to point out it doesnt take a hell of a lot of courage to standup for the Ten Commandments in Alabama or Missippi. Maybe if the Judge was in Massachusetts I would think it was courageous.
Thanks for clearing that up! I wondered!
I can most definitely read. It sounds like our only real disagreement is on the hypothetical negative examples you chose, which I don't regard as either leadership or courage.
Cheers.
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.