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: colonel mosby
If Billy Kristol is right, this will be disasterous for Conservatives and the Republican party.

The time for Conservatives to speak out is NOW, before the damage is done. The squeaky wheel gets the grease!

41 posted on 07/10/2005 7:50:14 AM PDT by TAdams8591 (Off-the-cuff-comments are NOT CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby
I'm afraid if this is true about Gonzales (big "if"), Scalia will be the next resignation.
42 posted on 07/10/2005 7:52:11 AM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uscabjd

I would like to see the dims fight to keep an African American woman, and a Hispanic, at the same time, from obtaining the high honor of becoming a Supreme Court Justice. Let them fight it. It will only dig their political grave deeper. It will expose them as the true racists they are.

IMHO, 2006 is right around the corner. The more hispanics and blacks they offend, the better for us. We need only a few percentage points to tip the elections in our favor.

If GWB appoints Gonzales, he will cause a tidal wave amongst Conservatives going into the 2006-2008 election. If GWB doesn't understand this, I think, Karl Rove does.


43 posted on 07/10/2005 7:53:11 AM PDT by sarasotarepublican (Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
"Here we go again, more mindless speculation. Why would Bush nominate Gonzalez for SCOTUS after he just been confirmed to be AG?

Kristol needs a vacation.
"


Agreed, and there are plenty of folks who need to go with him.




I'm never gonna vote for GWB again! Not ever!

44 posted on 07/10/2005 7:54:41 AM PDT by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

Scalia needs to be made Chief Justice or he may retire as well, and who could blame him.

In addition, we need two new justices with solid, conservative credentials, as we've been promised in the last two presidential campaigns.

This is the most critical moment of President George W. Bush's second term.


45 posted on 07/10/2005 7:56:09 AM PDT by colonel mosby (Dumb, pop-culture TV poll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591
Thanks. At least with a few of us, it is a start. I believe it feeds the "de-legitimize" the PRESIDENT tactics.
46 posted on 07/10/2005 7:56:25 AM PDT by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby
Clinton got two very liberal appointments: Breyer and Ginzburg. Clinton didn't appoint a squishy moderate.

Not true. As hard as it may be for you to believe, Ginsburg was viewed as a moderate, despite being legal councel for ACLU, based on one speech she gave where she attacked the legal foundation of Roe v Wade, much to the chagrin of feminists. This headfake fooled Orrin Hatch, and he lustily cheered for her throughout the confirmation, thinking he was getting a "stealth moderate."

The conventional wisdom at the time was that she was a moderate.

47 posted on 07/10/2005 7:57:25 AM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody
I wish that were true. I don't think so. Otherwise, President Bush would not have defended Gonzalez the way he did and admonished Conservatives to be quiet.

Actually, I think people who are making the suggestion you are making, are trying to lull Conservatives into complacency and shut them up, which truly would be disastrous!

I urge everyone to call your Senators and tell them that Alberto Gonzalez as a Supreme Court nominee, or a Supreme Court Justice nominee is completely unacceptable and will have a severe backlash on the Republican Party.

Every single one of President Bush's nominees MUST be a mainstream conservative (which Alberto Gonzalez is NOT). The configuration of the court must be completely changed. President Bush CAN NOT make the same mistake Reagan did, Unlike Reagan, he will NOT get away with it.

48 posted on 07/10/2005 7:58:59 AM PDT by TAdams8591 (Off-the-cuff-comments are NOT CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: airborne
Hogwash!

Unlike Reagan w/ Souter, Bush has worked with Gonzales for years and years BEFORE he was president and probably knows him very well, far far better than Reagan knew Souter. If you don't trust Bush to make the correct decision on this, why did you vote for him and thus trust him to make other decisions as president (assuming you did vote for him)?

49 posted on 07/10/2005 7:59:34 AM PDT by chilepepper (The map is not the territory -- Alfred Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sarasotarepublican

If the Reps get 20% of the Black vote, and 50% of the Hispanic vote, the Dims will be forever a minority party.

Also, with some exceptions, this has been a fairly conservative court for the past generation. Bush will probably get 3, maybe 4, picks. It will only be more conservative after he leaves.

I follow this, and other courts, very closely. It it a bad idea to throw out precedent in a big hurry.


50 posted on 07/10/2005 8:00:04 AM PDT by uscabjd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby
Kristol doesn't know any more about what Bush will do than I do. I don't think he will nominate anyone who supports past justices writing laws. Normally a president becomes pretty lame in the last year of his second term. If Bush nominates a judicial law writer, he will start limping immediately.

His pattern has been quite liberal on domestic issues. He has been conservative on foreign policy, and he has talked quite conservatively regarding the courts. He has also appointed sone judges that are supportable for lower courts.

51 posted on 07/10/2005 8:00:32 AM PDT by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13; All
Nominate anybody who's come out for Roe to ANY Supreme Court vacancy, and the Republican majority is over.

Absolutely. People here should not forget how quickly evangelicals like Robert Schuller and Jerry Falwell dumped Carter after it became clear he was making a hard left turn on everything. It won't take long for evangelicals to dump Bush if they feel betrayed. Without evangelical Christians, there is no Republican majority.

52 posted on 07/10/2005 8:01:15 AM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
I agree that this would be George Bush's 'read my lips' moment if it happens.
But hey, he doesn't need to run for re-election, and as seen in this forum, there is a big enough contingent that thinks there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
53 posted on 07/10/2005 8:02:07 AM PDT by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby
Bush's spinmeisters will make a critical mistake if they, in all of their hubris, believe, they can spin Gonzales as anything other than a betrayal to social conservatives and moderates.

Even blatant demagoguery about 911 and winning the war in Iraq won't save him this time.

There really is such a thing as reality, and you can't spin yourself out of it all of the time.

54 posted on 07/10/2005 8:02:49 AM PDT by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

You illustrate my point. Ginzburg fooled the gullible Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. Her high position in the American Civil Liberties Union should have been evidence enough.

But, as usual, Republicans played nice, and Democrats completely outwitted them. Clinton got a reliable liberal, and Republicans got egg all over their faces.


55 posted on 07/10/2005 8:03:36 AM PDT by colonel mosby (Dumb, pop-culture TV poll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby

William Kristol is a "Inside the Beltway" Ass Kissing turd! He has NEVER lived in the REAL world. So Middle Finger to YOU "Bill"!


56 posted on 07/10/2005 8:04:53 AM PDT by zzen01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby
Charles Krauthammer:
57 posted on 07/10/2005 8:05:01 AM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
" ... Without evangelical Christians, there is no Republican majority."


Without a Repubican majority there is no Evangelical Christians.

58 posted on 07/10/2005 8:05:05 AM PDT by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: deport; PhiKapMom

59 posted on 07/10/2005 8:06:02 AM PDT by onyx (Pope John Paul II - May 18, 1920 - April 2, 2005 = SANTO SUBITO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby

I trust Bush more than Kristol, way more.


60 posted on 07/10/2005 8:06:15 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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