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.
***Not to mention the fact that for 6 years W has promised conservatives a strict Constitutionalist when any vacancies opened up. Gonzales would be a double cross from a President who I admire much, but who would drop in stature among the base. I'm hoping that Kristol is dead wrong on this information otherwise I'm done with the Republican Party.
I feel the same way. I would be hard pressed to vote in 2006.
OK Hank. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the sexual pervert, lying, good time Billy Clinton referred to as the "President" by the MSM and others? I don't bow to politicians either but this President is not going to get disrespect from me..........do I agree with him in everything he does? NO! But I thank God he's our President and will stand by him.
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.
Furthermore it is you that is foolish if you don't think both the judicial and legislative bodies move (work) in increments. They most certainly do! (read some history!).
Federal judges are appointed by the President (and sworn in by the legislative branch) as those branches move (via elections over time) so do our courts! (in increments!).
And lastly, Gonzalez would be movement (an increment) in the right direction over O'Connor.
Additionally as I stated before GWB knows Gonzalez on a personal level (as well as on a professional level) and knows the man much better than you do! Much better. I trust his judgment as both CIC and as POTUS.
Despite the disgusting character assassination and slander that some here spew against Gonzales in a similar manner to how DU squeals, I agree that nominating Gonzales would be a huge mistake, perhaps the biggest of his presidency. The only way it might be feasible is if O'Connor, Rhenquist, AND Brenner or Ginsberg announce their retirement, since at least there would still be a net gain of 1 conservative on almost all issues, including abortion, and 2 on many others. Even then it would still hurt him and the GOP, as Roe V. Wade only moves from 6-3 to 5-4. Save Gonzales until the 4th resignation(or better yet, just keep him at Atty Gen, since we could get Janice Rogers Brown, Garza, Edith Jones, and Luttig or McConnell.)
When was the last time a judge got *more* conservative after being appointed to a lifetime post?
Once he's on the court, there's no amount of arm-twisting W or anybody else can do.
Brenner = Stevens
Sheesh.
A person can be pro choice on abortion and think the Roe decision was a poor one. They are not mutually inconsistent.
"The time for Conservatives to speak out is NOW, before the damage is done. The squeaky wheel gets the grease!"
We tried to speak out. It got interpreted as personal attacks against W's pal.
Presidents defend the US borders from foreign invasion.
Yeah and I could regret looking east tomorrow morning for the sunrise when the sun decides to rise in the west.
The odds are just the same.
When's the last time the Lamestream Media got anything right?
I've always called him Sh$%head Clinton. Problem is, I've been doing it so long I can't remember if "Sh$%head" is his first name or his title.
Don't care much either way, frankly.
*~*
I agree that the constitutional issues are more important than the purely abortion issues, but of course the two are often intertwined. Roe v. Wade is indefensible as a matter of constitutional law, although that may not necessarily be true for all abortion issues.
You are right, with respect to my error about the author of the "predictions". I need to always put my reading glasses on when I sit at the computer. And I scanned the post too quickly and my eye saw the name as Kristof, instead of Kristol.
You may be right about how well informed he is too.
I hope he is wrong, and I would press conservative Senators to find enough conservatives to deprive Gonzalez the nomination. Yes I would.
Bush was wrong about expecting the court to reject the campaign finance law and he will be wrong about any concession that the dims would give him on his next pick if he first offers Gonsalez.
This fight has been years in the making. We need to be clear that we are ready to get on with it. Any concession will be seen (rightly) as a weakness, with Dims feeling they are vindicated and they were right all along. It will not make any other nominations any easier at all.
Instead, Bush should call in six of the seven who brokered the "compromise" on the filibuster, minus McPain and explain to them personally why he picks a non-Gonzalez, in plain simple terms.
He should lay out his case for an "orginalist" pick with those six, and quietly and carefully explain why there is no so such thing as "moderation" or "balance" when it comes to the constitution. You eaither believe in upholding and defending the constition or you believe in judges dictating constitutional amendments by judicial fiat. It is not a matter of abortion, or any other immediate issue. It is how a judge should do their job.
That's the case Bush should make and it is to the six RINOs that followed McPain that he should make it.
Gonzalez is going to destroy the Republican party in the Senate, beyond it's already weakened state.
I have warned Bush that Gonzales is going to depress the Republican base in 2006 and 2008.
People have worked and fought since Reagan and some for longer than that and they are going to feel mightily defeated and war weary with a Gonzales nomination. You will not get the turnout of the base that we had in 2004.
I understand your feelings......that drives me nuts too.
And, who could ever trust the Republican party or believe it is anything substantially different than the Democratic party if a GOP President and Senate refuse to fix the judiciary?
I'll tell ya my view on it...Sometimes it out of dis-respect...I've never put the big P in front of Clinton...Sometimes I don't believe George is being the President of the United States of America...
And other times;
I ventured to Montana many years ago...Raining like crazy and I got stuck in this thick red mud, knee deep to a giraffe...I wandered into a bar in a very small town looking for a phone...A fella after overhearing my misfortune walked up and said let's go...I climbed into his older truck and he took me back to my vehicle...He then jumped out, pulled out a chain and crawled underneath my car in the mud and rain, hooked it up and pulled me out...
Shortly after, talking to someone else, I found out the guy who helped me was a large rancher...A millionaire at that...Not something I was used to back home...
And I said all that to say this...
'President' Bush seems to be the type of person that can't wait to get out of the monkey suit he wears each day...He seems to be the type of guy who would crawl in the mud in the rain to help a person out...Sometimes, he's George, the REAL person...
The point is that there is NO reason for Bush and the Republicans in the Senate not to appoint a judge that is a KNOWN originalist in the Scalia mode. They have 55 seats in the Senate and the Presidency. There are no more excuses that work anymore.
I doubt that President Bush will betray his base, at least in such an overt fashion as to nominate Gonzales. I also have to think that he realizes that whether he nominates moderate conservatives or pure conservatives, he'll end up having to go nuclear; so there's little to lose by going for full fledged Constitutionalists.
My predictions are uninformed and speculative, of course, but here they are:
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.