Diasterous would be an understatement.
Gonzalez is still employed as AG. Why not give the nomination to John Ashcroft ?
That should be good enough to launch several lefties into orbit.
I trust Kristol is wrong.
If Bush nominates Gonzalez I'm finished with Bush. NOTHING could change my mind, not even a failure of the nomination to go through. Sorry, but it would undo everything Bush has accomplished so far, and consign him to the trash. Nominating a pro-abort, squishy RINO to SCOTUS because he happens to be Bush's friend would be a huge mistake.
I don't want to see hillary become president, but it might happen, because this would cause a meltdown of the whole Republican party.
Hopefully Kristol is wrong. But I would no more forgive Bush for such a move than I would forgive Chirac.
I hope Kristol is wrong. If he did this, it would mean that he has been LYING to us about USSC nominations. I really don't think he would do that. But I've been wrong before.
I can't see a Republican majority voting for Gonzales...But a few Republicans and all the Democrats will...
Read my lips; no new taxes.
I will appoint a Scalia or a Thomas.
Needless to say I was take aback by this pronouncement and if Kristol has some sort of inside line at the White House and if this indeed the plan -- well... expletive, expletive and DOUBLE expletive.
First things first, we need a Constitutionalist in that seat, someone that will apply the Constitution and not make it up as he or she goes along. The problem is this --no one knows what Gonzalez will do. Souter part deux anyone?
Secondly, Clarence Thomas should be made Chief of this court. Perhaps under his control the court can be steered off of the fascist and ultimately destructive path it has been traveling down for some time. I would be fine with Scalia but I prefer Thomas.
So we have unnamed sources from the Justice Department brought to us by the small weenie himself, Bill Kristol? Prol'y some career wrench thrower looking for a promotion when the next Democrat president gets elected.
And, who exactly is an unnamed source who is "close to the White House". Is it some nobody standing out beyond the fence on Pennsylvania Avenue?
This is the kind of story that can never be proved wrong. When Gonzalez is not picked, it will simply be believed by those easily swayed, that Bush changed his mind because of all the pressure.
Even in some quarters here at FR.
First, I must relook at the record of Gonzales. If he is the moderate that everyone is claiming, then I'll not be demoralized. I will be lost to the Republican Party.
The argument against Gonzales that I heard had something to do with a bad decision he supported in an abortion case.
Anyone know what it was?
Anti-private property rights: FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000)
Gonzales joined a 6-3 ruling by Justice Baker that struck down a state law that allowed certain private landowners to exempt themselves from municipal water-quality and other environmental ordinances by creating their own "water quality protection zones."
Abortion rights:
In re Jane Doe 1(II), 19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000) Joined with the majority in making a liberal interpretation of a Texas law requires minors who seek an abortion to notify their parents.
Here is a really weird one ...
Texas Farmers Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 996 S.W.2d 873 (Tex. 1999) Gonzales wrote a 7-2 opinion that held that an innocent spouse could recover insurance proceeds when her co-insured spouse intentionally set fire to their insured home.
I think a lot of folks are going over the top about this. Here are some of my random thoughts...
First I doubt Bush will appoint him. Just my gut feeling, but I don't think he would have named him AG if he thought he might be nominating him to an early opening in the court.
If he is appointed he will be confirmed easily. Even if every democrat voted against him (which they won't since they know he is about as moderate as they will get from Bush), can you really name six Republican senators who would vote against him? I can't think of one.
Would Gonzales be another Scalia? No. Would he be another Souter? No. He would be a fairly conservatve justice but not a strict constructionist. In other words pretty much like Rehnquist. If he were named Cheif Justice and O'Connor is replaced by someone like Garza, Luttig, McConnell or Roberts it would still be a big shift toward constitutional law. A lot of the decisions that have gone against us 5-4 would now go our way.
For those "I'm giving up on Bush" people, HE ISN"T RUNNING AGAIN. So what are you going to do, not support him on issues where you think he is right? In any case, Bush will do what he thinks is right, regardless of what you think. Clearly a conservative court is important to him, and if he appoints Gonazales it's because he thinks he would be a conservative justice. He may be wrong, butI haven't heard much of anything concrete to show that he wouldn't be. So get a grip. Gonzales isn't ideal, but he wouldn't be the end of the world either.
For once, Kristol is right. It will be a disaster for the Republican party. Much more importantly, it will be a disaster for this country.
Bush apparently wants to push Gonzalez because he's Bush's "friend." Sorry, Mr. Bush, that's not good enough for the rest of us. I don't care if he is your friend and you resent anyone expressing reservations about him. And I don't think a qualification to the S.C. is met because you want to pander to Hispanic voters on behalf of future GOP candidates.
I don't want an O'Connor-type "moderate" on the bench. I want someone who will faithfully interpret the constitution, not vote their "feelings" and "penumbras", or otherwise twist the constitution out of shape by claiming it's a "living, breathing document."
How about doing just this one favor for conservatives before leaving office, and perhaps we'll try to forget the scores of other times you have so sorely disappointed us.
Gozalez is just wrong.
He is too much a rino based on the comentary here.
We need someone who is willing to connect constitutional law back to the constitution.
Another wishy washy lawyer is not going to cut it.