Posted on 07/10/2005 7:19:51 AM PDT by colonel mosby
William Kristol, who correctly predicted that O'Connor would retire before Rehnquist, now has a dire prediction. Kristol claims that Rehnquist will retire this week, and that Bush operatives are already clearing the way to nominate Alberto Gonzales for new Chief Justice. Kristol made the comments on Fox News Sunday, as part of the four member discussion panel.
According to this train of thought, according to Kristol, the White House believes that it can avoid Congressional conflict by appointing a moderate like Gonzales, and then balance it by naming a true conservative to replace O'Connor. This would effectively leave the current "balance of the court" intact.
Panelists Juan Williams and CeCe Connolly applauded this notion, and felt it was a worthy compromise. However, panelist Charles Krauthammer warned that appointing Gonzales to the court would be a huge mistake because, by doing so, Bush would "betray his base" and "betray his promises".
William Kristol said that a Gonzales appointment, or any moderate appointment, would be "incredibly demoralizing" and "disastrous" for George W. Bush, because it would completely alienate his conservative base, and cause a terrible fracture in the Republican Party.
There is more than one hurricane on the horizon.
Kristol's right.
Nominate anybody who's come out for Roe to ANY Supreme Court vacancy, and the Republican majority is over.
What's to say Gonzales won't change his mind on abortion? Souter was thought to be a conservative when Bush 1 nominated him and look how he turned out. Maybe this was planned all along. Get him in as a pro choicer and then have W twist his arm into voting pro life. It could happen.
Kristol also thought John McCain was a better choice for President in 2000.
William Kristol said that a Gonzales appointment, or any moderate appointment, would be "incredibly demoralizing" and "disastrous" for George W. Bush, because it would completely alienate his conservative base, and cause a terrible fracture in the Republican Party.
Sounds like Kristol was imitating John Kerry and justed wanted to play with Juan and CeCe.
you might win the lottery too.
The word "panelists" is inserted in front of talking heads, and multi-word titles before the demonRATS, but rarely PRESIDENT, in front of PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH.
This bugs me. /rant
"What's to say Gonzales won't change his mind on abortion?"
He could.
But there's no arm-twisting of any Supreme Court Justice.
His position is declared and known.
Naming him would be betrayal of the pro-life base and breaking a campaign promise.
As a Christian conservative, I think we must be cautious to attack Gonzales.
Bush is the president. He has done many things that I do not agree with, but not nearly as many as his predecessor.
If we beat up Gonzales publically, we might just end up getting two softies for the USSC instead of one. I say let the President make his pick, and provide him with a good replacement for Rehnquist. Then, we can all pray that one of the liberals on the court retires and we have a change to replace them with a conservative.
Personally, I think that Roe V Wade is not going to be corrected by the USSC regardless of how many judges we can get in during Bush's term. It will take a few more judges to fix that broken situation.
I almost believe that Gonzales may be a stealth candidate groomed by Bush just for the Supreme Court. Appear moderate, but really judge as a conservative.
Bush needs to understand that, after the disastrous Republican appointments of Souter, O'Connor and Stevens, conservatives are in no mood for "compromise", or a "moderating voice on the Court."
The fact that liberals from Harry Reid to Juan Williams are grinning over the prospect of a Gonzales appointment should be reason enough for Bush to keep him as far away from The Supreme Court as possible.
Kristol needs a vacation.
1. Gonzalez is damaged goods with his terrorism opinion, at least as far as the SC goes.
2. Democrats will never play nice if anyone tries to compromise with them.
3. After campaign finance reform, one would think GWB would learn from his experiences.
Those dems may regret a Gonzales. He could pull a Souter on them and move to the right once sworn in.
let the blood bath begin!
the democrat beaches will go absolutely hysterical,
and joining them will be the purists on this forum who will exhibit their terrible 2's
and cry they're voting for hillary.
"so, there, if bush doesn't do what i say, i'm going to destroy his party".(/s)
If Gonzales is picked, the President is surrendering territory.
Paloma, I understand you, but this was not the deal.
The Pro-Lifer's deal was: we work out hearts out in election after election, for 32 years, and when you Republican leaders finally get control, you install judges who will overturn Roe. We are not going to change our expectations in order to make it easier for the Republicans. This is why we are at the party in the first place. If the Republicans had not made this their platform for 32 years, the pro-lifers would not be in the party as a bloc, and the Republicans would not be the majority.
There is an effort to try to renegotiate the terms of a deal after 32 years of substantial performance by pro-lifers.
No.
It is not going to fly.
Remember the electoral disaster after Bush's father raised taxes? Low tax conservatives decided that the betrayal was too much, and Bush 41 and his team were out.
That will happen to the Republicans now if they do not put pro-life conservatives on the Supreme Court, people who will overturn Roe. That was the deal, and we are not going to accept the Republicans changing the deal now.
Kristol is wrong, about the Republican majority splitting upi over a candidate that "might" overturn Roe. As a couple of the swinging Republican seven have said - "judicial philosophy" is not "an extraordinary circumstance".
And the key to whether or not Roe "might" be overturned does not require a record that indicates the candidate would overturn Roe. The candidate may have nothing in their "track record" to indicate exactly how they would vote on Roe; and there is good reason and precendent in the hearing process to not answer that question directly.
The key is whether or not the candidate will defend and upholds the constitution, as opposed to re-writing it, or not. In other words, an "orginalist". And if I hear at least two of the slippery seven Reps, they will not accept the candidacy of an orginalist as extraordinary circumstances.
Kritol is a lib looking for "balance", which to a liberal means a five to four liberal majority.
Gonzales has more problems than just the abortion issue. He has upheld and even encouraged affirmative action initiatives.
There are just too many warning lights going off with Alberto Gonzales. Estrada would be a much better Hispanic appointment.
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.