Kristol warns: Bush wants Gonzales for Chief Justice

Fox News Sunday | July 10, 2005 | colonel mosby

[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.

[Iwo Jima]

No one is ever a "candidate" for Supreme Court justice or any other appointed position for that matter. Gonzales's comment was disengenuous and yet another reason for me not to trust him.

[ContraryMary]

Very nice analysis of Gonzales. But what did you mean by saying the problem is his integrity -- that he's too conservative to legislate from the bench? Isn't that what we want?

[denydenydeny]

Bill Kristol stirring up trouble? Why, I'm shocked.

[Howlin]

Fonts Fonts Fonts Fonts Fonts!

"I have a column to fill up! I need fonts! I will speculate. I will drive everyone into a frenzy!"

[ContraryMary]

LOL!

[Ronaldus Magnus]

My abdomen cramped up when I heard Mr. Kristol's prediction. It will be a horrific disappointment if he nominates Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. I, like hundreds of thousands of other Bush/Cheney 2004 volunteers, was primarily motivated by the President's promise to nominate justices who think that the constitution "means what it says". Atty. Gen. Gonzalez's rulings on a constitutional right to abortion and the registration of private firearm ownership demonstrates that he instead believes that the "Constitution Is What the Supreme Court Says." I would view his nomination as a betrayal, as would tens of millions of other republican voters who took the president at his word. I fear the consequences of this hypothetical unfaithfulness would hurt all Republican candidates long after 2006.

I don't think that there is anything I can do to influence this decision, however. The choice of nominees is now the President's decision alone and he has publicly asked conservatives to withhold comment. I still trust that the President will keep his word, and I am hopeful that next month we will all be chuckling at what was our completely unwarranted doubt in the President's character.

[Howlin]

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.

There was NEVER any such "deal" like that made by George W. Bush.

EVER.

[riri]

and joining them will be the purists on this forum who will exhibit their terrible 2's and cry they're voting for hillary.

Yep...

[Haru Hara Haruko]

because, by doing so, Bush would "betray his base" and "betray his promises".

Crawl across broken glass? Heck, I woudn't miss a Seinfeld rerun to vote for Republicrats like that.

[PhiKapMom]

First the Doom and Gloomers (D&G's) took the word of Chirac over the President and now it is Kristol over the President. Kristol does not have access to anyone in the WH that would be in the know! He only wishes he didn't burn all those bridges over the years and this article isn't rebuilding any of them.

We still have that swamp land in Arizona for those folks real cheap! As Rush said D&G's are liberals! :)

[jstolzen]

What worries me is that Dubya and Rove let Specter get the judiciary chairmanship, DESPITE the howls of outrage from the base.

These guys have lost touch a LONG time ago with what they were sent there to do. Witness the Specter debacle.

As much as I hate to say it, my money is that Dubya caves on this. And, if he does - the Republican party as we know it will go down in **FLAMES** in 2006 and 2008. MILLIONS - if not TENS OF MILLIONS of conservatives will simply stay home out of complete and total disgust if Dubya breaks his promise, like his father did in the "no new taxes" flub.

The wrong move here, and we're looking at President Hillary in '08, gang.

Dubya CAN'T be that foolish - but sometimes the elitism and arrogance extends even to our own party.

We need some leaders who start doing what we sent them there to do.

[Haru Hara Haruko]

As a Christian conservative, I think we must be cautious to attack Gonzales.

Why? We must stop his career where it stands. And he isn't such a great AG anyway.

[hosepipe]

[ 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. ]

Could be because many that voted for OL' "Read my Lips NO new taxes" SON, were forced to vote for him.. Since he ran for President against a virtual in your face traitor.. with so many acts of treason in his background they are past counting..

Not to speak of the fact, Count Von Bushula and the Bushbats in Congress are out democrat'ing the democrats.. as they bleed the economy like an African tribe bleeds the family cow.. instead of fileting the federal government like a fish..

[Iwo Jima]

...that he's too conservative to legislate from the bench? Isn't that what we want?

No, we don't want any judge to legislate from the bench (or anywhere else for that matter). What we want is for Supreme Court justices to strictly interpret the Constitution with the intent of the Framers firmly in mind, and to interpret statutes within that Constitutional framework.

This is the very antithesis of "legislating from the bench."

[John Robertson]

"Those dems may regret a Gonzales. He could pull a Souter on them and move to the right once sworn in."

Yeah...or he could move even further left out of the so-called center. Those SC judges who "surprised us" by moving idealogically once they were confirmed...always went from the right or the center...to further left.

I won't take that bet. Gonzales is a very, very bad idea, and if put on the court, conservs will abandon the Repub party and hand the 06 elections to the dems, and likely the 08 prez, too.

When the Left starts sending signals that they can "live with" Gonzales...that's when we should start screaming the loudest that we will not accept him.

[inquest]

...they're voting for hillary.

Hallucinate much?

[Haru Hara Haruko]

As evidenced by FR polls, there will be some diagreement amongst conservatives no matter who Bush nominates.

There are at least 5 excellent choices who would have voted the right way on Kelo and roasted a bone over the corpse of the New Deal. Just because I have my favorites is no excuse for Bush to go for the bottom of the barrel.

[Thorin]

>>>>If Gonzales is picked, the President has lost the war.

You are exactly right.

[riri]

Hallucinate much?

You've never seen it? I have countless times. So keep your rude comments to yourself, thank you.