[denydenydeny]

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

[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.

[surely_you_jest]

In light of the many disappointments brought to us by President Bush over budget deficits, rampant growth in the federal bureaucracy, refusal to do anything to stem the flood of illegal aliens streaming across the borders, and so on -

Is anybody actually surprised by this?

[Antoninus]

Nominating Gonzales would be an unpardonable betrayal. Bush's approval rating will be <30% for the remainder of his term and he'll be an immediate lame duck for the rest of his time. He'll also go down as a carbon copy of his Daddy--a fake conservative who played the base for suckers to get elected.

[Diddle E. Squat]

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.)

[Ol' Sparky]

Only if Bush wants to be despised by more people than Bill Clinton is. His Presidency will be a far bigger failure than his father's was. He will literally be hated by virtually hated by conseratives and liberals.

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?

[southernnorthcarolina]

I'm considerably more optimistic than the congenitally dour Mr. Kristol.

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:

• Chief Justice Rehnquist resigns, soon -- within two weeks, and before the President makes his choice for the current vacancy public. So, two seats, Chief Justice and an Associate Justice, are open.

• Antonin Scalia to CJ.

• Though he'll deny it, and though there's no quota system, the President "needs," politically speaking, to nominate a Latino/Latina. But not Gonzales. Emilio Garza.

• Though he'll deny it, and though there's no quota system, the President "needs," politically speaking, to nominate a woman. Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement leaves only Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a Justice of the XX chromosomal persuasion, and she clearly has health problems. With abortion issues on the horizon (though not, at least yet, a reversal of Roe), no way President Bush will allow a diminution of female presence on the Court. Janice Rogers Brown.

OK, so my speculation is influenced by optimism.

[Gum Shoe]

"Panelists Juan Williams and CeCe Connolly applauded this notion, and felt it was a worthy compromise."

Well that makes it a dog's dinner right there.

[Dat Mon]

ARTICLE..."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."

This is so crazy I cant believe it!

I criticize Bush's policies on this forum from time to time...but I cant believe he would commit political suicide...not only for his administration, but for the entire Republican party as well.

Bad enough to nominate Gonzales to replace O'Connor, but to even consider putting your buddy on as CJ is ludicrous.

It would be a direct slap in the face to Scalia...who IMO deserves the CJ.

It would be a direct slap in the face to ALL conservatives...including the 'extremist' ones Bush referred to in his so called defense of Gonzales.

I'm gonna put Gonzales' politics aside here....its immaterial in a sense as far as his suitability to be nominated to SCOTUS....especially CJ.

He is flat out NOT the best candidate we have. You put your best people forward...the best and the brightest...not just your buddies. The founding fathers did not approve of cronyism.

If Bush is dead set on nominating an Hispanic...he has a perfect candidate in Estrada...who is IMO head and shoulders above Gonzales...not just his background (which would be an inspiration to hardworking Hispanics who are playing by the rules) ..he is just plain smarter....and a solid conservative too.

If he wants somebody who served him honorably and loyally, and also well known to him...let him nominate John Ashcroft...a decent man, a great background, and a true conservative.

If this is some sort of White House calculated trial balloon..it sucks...period.

[k2blader]

If Rehnquist is to retire (which is likely), the person who replaces him will not automatically be chief justice, correct?

Putting aside the chief justice part, I think Bush would *like* Gonzales on the Supreme Court, but he'd be crazy to pursue that, period.

[smiley]

.....I nominate Mark Levin for the Supreme Court...no one knows more about the Constitution than that man.

[smiley]

.....I nominate Mark Levin for the Supreme Court...no one knows more about the Constitution than that man.

[Credo]

Kristol got lucky with O'Connor. Gonzales has significant problems in hearing cases as a Justice. He would probably have to recuse himself on a large number of items due to his being AG and White House Counsel.

Although President Bush has been disappointing to some extent on domestic issues, Judicial nominations and tax cuts have not been a source of disappointment. His appointments to Circuit judges has given Democrats apoplexy. Why would he be different with a Supreme choice?

[Lancelot Jones]

"The dissenting opinions suggest that the exceptions to the general rule of notification should be very rare and require a high standard of proof. I respectfully submit that these are policy decisions for the legislature," Gonzales wrote. In the same passage he concluded: "Thus, to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

Alberto Gonzales crafted a decision based on the letter of the statute, as written by the Texas legislature.

That does not make him a bad Judge, it makes him a great Judge.

Owens and the dissenters wanted to render a decision based on verbiage which was not included in the statute by the legislators, but rather on how they "felt" about the subject; when liberal Judges engage in such actions, conservatives call it judicial activism.

We should call it the same thing when conservative Judges engage in it.

If the language of the Texas Parental Notification Law is not crafted to suit the wishes of the more conservative segments of Texas conservatives, they need to urge their legislators to change the law. What they should not be doing is demanding judicial activism, or legislation from the bench.

Beauseant!

[montag813]

Gonzales has nothing in his history as an attorney, judge or counsel which demonstrates the kind of brilliant legal mind of a Antonin Scalia or Michael Luttig. Why on earth would Bush want such a moderate legal lightweight to lead the Court in a Conservative judicial revolution? Just because he's his Texas Latino buddy? I hope Kristol is wrong about this. Gonzales does not belong anywhere near the SCOTUS, let alone leading it.