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.
LEADERSHIP! - And yes, it is whining when a decision has not even been made and plenty are already crying over it. (and doing so by saying what "others" will say about it...IF it does actually happen). - My God, how silly.
I don't want that for my kids.
Psst... My reading shows that Gonzales is not pro-abortion. He is a strict interpretationist, which is why he has ruled against pro-life in the past. The problem isn't Gonzales beliefs, but his integrity. He is too ideologically conservative to legislate from the bench.
The question on the legality of abortion is a legislative matter. Get him on the court, and I think Bush will be proven to be right about Gonzales. All that will matter after Gonzaels on the court is whether or not we can pass a law giving "personage" to unborn children, which would eliminate 1/3 of the argument used to justify the Roe v. Wade decision. And if you knock out the "privacy" clause, because a right to privacy does not give a person a right to harm another person, then Roe v. Wade fails, and any new laws criminalizing late term abortions and mid term abortions will become feasible. If we can give a conservative court the basis to overturn Roe v. Wade, a statutory basis, then I think we can win the battle.
True (2. Democrats will never play nice if anyone tries to compromise with them). Nor do they play honest.
Upon an agreement to compromise with a liberal, one finds that you have stepped onto a moving sidewalk that is headed left with a vengence.
Socialists alway demand compromise from others, but never give it.
Isn't it funny that the leftist side just never happens to nominate judges who turn up being conservative despite a leftist reputation? Republican presidents have nominated folks like Stevens, O'Connor and Souter who have ended up going more and more to the left after their nomination. Clinton's two judges almost always vote on the party line.
No one is stopping Pres. Bush from "nominating his man". The majority of the people who voted for him primarily did so because of 2 reasons: 1. war on terror and 2. restoring sanity into the federal judicial system. It is clear that the WH is floating balloons about Gonzalez. Twerps like Kristol are simply vehicles to release said balloons. The first balloon float - when O'Connor resigned - was shot down thoroughly. Now with the imminent resignation of the CJ, the Bush team has dusted off the Gonzalez balloon and - via Kristol and others - are taking it out for another test drive. All that is happening here is that people - 95%+ Bush supporters! - are reacting to the test balloon.
This is not prescription drugs or education reform. Restoring "originalists" (as Rush calls them) to the courts is a core issue of the now-majority Republicans in this country. It's like strong self-defense. Any Republican who would run against a strong defense policy would be risking the support of the rank and file of the Republican majority and, if said policy were actually enacted under that Republican's term, would risk severe alienation of future support for the party. Same thing here. The President ran strong and hard - for 2 election cycles - on reforming the runaway federal judiciary. Go back to his campaign speeches. There's no ambiguity about the position he staked out. Appointing justices in the "mold of Scalia and Thomas" was the buzz phrase the generated massive applause at countless campaign rallies. To practice "moderation" or appeasement to keep the "balance in the court", with not 1 but 2 vacancies (likely) - and the opportunity to realign the judicial ship of state - would be nothing short of disastrous. Conservatives have been working and investing their time and money in election cycle after election cycle for this moment. Bush seized on this core desire in order to garner support and get elected not once but twice. Any deviation from HIS strongly worded and clearly stated objectives would be a true abandonment. There is no ambiguity here. He would be abandoning principles that he professed to in order to get the support of the folks who put him in power. I would be confident in proposing that nearly every person who pulled the Bush lever in November did so with the anticipation that there would be a significant opportunity to redirect the federal judiciary including the Supreme Court. Bush, to his credit, appears to have kept his word on appellate justice appointments - don't seem to be any squishy "moderates" in that group. One can argue about whether he has invested political capital in them, but he certainly has put forward nominees in the mold of his campaign rhetoric. I personally have faith that he will not take this historic opportunity to abandon his campaign promises and deviate from his past practices.
What is happening here and throughout the conservative world is that we are simply reminding the President and his team that we are watching and that we expect him to take the full advantage of the opportunity to reverse the ruinous direction of the Supreme Court. I don't sense any disrespect, just trepidation on the part of the faithful that the President might be entertaining different directions. If he indeed does go the route of appeasing the congressional democrats and the MSM and giving us "1 out of 2", I fully expect that the core conservatives will feel abandoned yet again by the Republican leadership. Although Bush is not running again, such an abandonment of a core conservative principle will vitiate the conservative support of the Republican party. Let's hope and pray he doesn't go in the appeasement direction.
His position is declared and known.
I'm not crying over it. I'm voicing my opinion. You're just lumping me in with the "If Bush picks Gonzales, I'll never vote Republican again" crowd.
Thank God we have real leadership in the WH and not people who would simply judge their decisions based on what "others" will think / say about them.
Where did I ever say Bush should care what Schumer (or anyone) thinks?
Give liberals what they want!
His mother votes Democrat. Of course this doesn't mean a thing.
As could be expected from first Hispanic President, the successor to the first Black President. What happened to the tradition of an All-American President ???
"Bush would "betray his base" and "betray his promises"."
Oh, this would be a first!
The difference is clear. It is not "liberals" or "conservatives" per se that drive this issue--it is the understanding that most of our domestic policy disagreements stem initially from the threashold determination to ignore the Constitution. And the only real way to return America to the strong free enterprise economic system, with a republican form of limited government is to return to the Constitution.
Gonzales is on the wrong side of this issue; together with Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens, Bryer, and probably Kennedy.
Like his father, George II is on the hook for a "read my lips" commitment on this question.
The Supreme Court appointment issue was the only material difference between the two candidates in the last election. Now sure, Kerry would have done a number of other things we disapprove of; his general policy direction might have been worse than George II's; but on the plus side, the Republican majorities in Congress would have taken a much different direction on spending and the execution of foreign policy decisions to the ultimate end that Conservatives, except for the Supreme Court appointments, would have been more satisfied with the long term end result. Certainly more likely to have produced a better result than our current bankrupt federal government, involved in two offshore nation building exercises in which we have no direct interest, both of which are likely to have terrible outcomes, for which the voters are likely to hold all Republicans responsible. The Supreme Court appointment issue was the deciding question on which George II was elected.
If he now reneges, there just isn't ever going to be any excuse to vote for another Republican wet for President no matter how bad the Democrat candidate may appear to be.
Didn't Gonzalez say he wasn't a candidate?
So...lets say PB does zig left (anything less than his statement in the vein of Thomas and Scalia) with these court choices.
Who is our true champion in 2008?
That may be, but I wouldn't take the risk on this nomination. If this was to replace Stevens or Ginsberg, then maybe, as just about anyone would be more conservative then either one of them.
Since we're replacing O'Connor, we need to make sure to place a more conservative nominee who will be solid on gun rights and the right to life!
I must have missed it. When did Gonzales come out in favor of Roe? As far as I know, he overruled a parental notification law based upon a technicality. Where did he come out in favor of Roe?
Honestly, I don't know. Considering that the direction of the Supreme Court will likely be set in stone for a few decades by the end of Bush's 2nd term (2 resignations now, probably at least 1 or 2 more over the next 2 years), it might not matter.
I think the demoralization of the base that Karl Rove so masterfully energized and rolled out last year will be so great that ANY Republican candidate will have a severe disadvantage. The Bush family and the Clinton family - now such close friends - will be even closer, as Prez. Hildebeest would have Bush's SC reversal to thank for her election.
Not quite. Bush 2 isn't in his first term like Bush 1 was.
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.