Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kristol warns: Bush wants Gonzales for Chief Justice
Fox News Sunday | July 10, 2005 | colonel mosby

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: chiefjustice; gonzales; kristol; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-258 next last
To: airborne

"If Gonzales is picked, the President is surrendering territory."

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


21 posted on 07/10/2005 7:34:07 AM PDT by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody
Why is it sooooo difficult for everyone to put the word PRESIDENT before Bush????

Thank you, good observation!

22 posted on 07/10/2005 7:34:11 AM PDT by Archon of the East ("universal executive power of the law of nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby

I don't buy Gonzo for CHIEF Justice.

HOWEVER, should it happen, even a SMALL chance of "Scalia resigns", should scare the crap out of all us.


23 posted on 07/10/2005 7:34:27 AM PDT by beckaz (Deport, deport. deport.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby

As evidenced by FR polls, there will be some diagreement amongst conservatives no matter who Bush nominates. But........... if Bush nominates anybody the dems find acceptable, I will be disapointed greatly. So, my OK goes to anybody the dems would fight over.


24 posted on 07/10/2005 7:34:29 AM PDT by umgud (Comment removed by poster before moderator could get to it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby
The 8th Circuit Nebraska PBA decision this past Friday was decided by a Bush 41 pick, a Reagan pick, and a Clinton pick. All three voted to strike down the PBA ban law.

FWIW. (And I am convinced it's closely related to the discussion on this thread.)

25 posted on 07/10/2005 7:34:48 AM PDT by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13

Naming him would be betrayal of the pro-life base and breaking a campaign promise.
-------
Nowadays, betrayal of your voting base does not seem to be a problem at all for Washington -- just look at how the illegal Mexican issue/border issue is being handled (IGNORED) -- is that supporting your conservative, patriotic, American voting base?? And not only is it shafting the country, but it represents a wholesale breaking of the Presidential oath!!!


26 posted on 07/10/2005 7:35:33 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cu Roi

Agree completely. That would be my preference as well. The more right the better, but I don't see it happening. He needs to fight the judicial war the same way as the WOT. He seems to be eager to appease the left too much on his potential choice. I hope i'm wrong.


27 posted on 07/10/2005 7:37:01 AM PDT by Ron in Acreage (It's the borders stupid! "ALLEN IN 08")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby
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.
28 posted on 07/10/2005 7:38:08 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby

I understand that Gonzales is at best lukewarm on gun rights and the Second Amendment. That's reason enough for me to oppose him.


29 posted on 07/10/2005 7:38:15 AM PDT by billnaz (What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron in Acreage

What's to say Gonzales might change his "collective" viewpoint on RKBA ? I don't think it will happen.


30 posted on 07/10/2005 7:38:25 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Scratch a Liberal. Uncover a Fascist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby
Any Justice's "position" on abortion "should be" irrelevant. An originalist or strict constructionist would leave these issues to the states and not make law, that is what I am fighting for, the judiciary to it's job not the job of congress.
31 posted on 07/10/2005 7:38:58 AM PDT by Archon of the East ("universal executive power of the law of nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red
It's why I always take anything Kristol says with skepticism until the facts actually come out.
32 posted on 07/10/2005 7:40:55 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Clinton got two very liberal appointments: Breyer and Ginzburg.

Clinton didn't appoint a squishy moderate. Clinton didn't have any doubts that both of his Supreme Court appointees would vote the straight liberal line, on every single issue. He was 100% correct.

Why should a Republican president nominate a moderate ? It's absolutely insane !


33 posted on 07/10/2005 7:42:07 AM PDT by colonel mosby (Dumb, pop-culture TV poll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13

Good or bad, ( I think that it is a poor decision), Roe is the law and Gonzales, AND EVERY OTHER JUDGE ON BUSH'S OR YOUR LIST, has applied it.


34 posted on 07/10/2005 7:43:27 AM PDT by uscabjd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby
This would effectively leave the current "balance of the court" intact.

But there is no "balance" on the court. Its unbalanced in accordance with elections, which have shown the GOP winning the past effing 11 years.

The GOP base should feel stabbed in the back.

35 posted on 07/10/2005 7:45:01 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator (This space outsourced to India)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Kristol needs a vacation.

Kristol wears more makeup in private than on TV.

36 posted on 07/10/2005 7:45:59 AM PDT by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Archon of the East; All
Thanks.
Also, PRESIDENT Bush has not hinted at, nor uttered one single word regarding AG Gonzales being nominated to the SC. Period.

This is all speculation and talking points, mainly by the demonRATS, to show they are agreeable and compromising. It is just a ruse to get the conservatives into a verbal war, leaving them battle weary, BEFORE a nomination has been made.

37 posted on 07/10/2005 7:46:17 AM PDT by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Did you actually read the article? Kristol is NOT advocating Gonzalez.


38 posted on 07/10/2005 7:46:34 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator (This space outsourced to India)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody

That bugs me too. I am trying to be cognizant of it and am attempting to remember to put "president" in front of Bush when I refer to him.


39 posted on 07/10/2005 7:47:38 AM PDT by TAdams8591 (Off-the-cuff-comments are NOT CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ron in Acreage
He seems to be eager to appease the left too much on his potential choice.

What EXACTLY has the PRESIDENT said or done, that brings you to this conclusion?

40 posted on 07/10/2005 7:48:55 AM PDT by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-258 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson