Posted on 07/11/2005 5:22:45 PM PDT by wagglebee
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush is prepared for additional Supreme Court vacancies should they occur, the White House said on Monday amid speculation that U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist will retire, allowing Bush to make a second appointment to the high court.
Some court experts for days have been anticipating a retirement announcement from Rehnquist, who is 80 and suffering from thyroid cancer.
If Rehnquist does retire, his vacancy would give Bush a second Supreme Court opening to fill, along with the opening created by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who said July 1 she will retire when a replacement is confirmed by the Senate.
"We are prepared for additional vacancies if they should occur. This is something that we have prepared for quite some time at the White House. But I'm not aware of any announcement that's been made on an additional vacancy at this point," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Bush has been reviewing background material and the legal opinions of more than half a dozen potential candidates to the Supreme Court and appears unlikely to make an announcement on who he wants to replace O'Connor until toward the end of the month.
Bush is to meet with top Republican and Democratic senators at the White House on Tuesday to hear their views on how he should fill the position.
They are Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and the committee's top Democrat, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy.
"The president is not prejudging anything. He wants to hear what their views are and hear what they have to say as we move forward on a Supreme Court nominee," McClellan said.
Democrats want Bush to appoint a moderate like O'Connor, who was appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan and was often a swing vote between the court's conservative and liberal wings.
"There are potential candidates who would unite Americans, and those who would divide us. Meaningful consultation is more than checking off a box. It means a real dialogue that can help the President find a good nominee who could have overwhelming bipartisan support," said Leahy.
Reid, who has been tough on Bush, called Tuesday's meeting a "good opportunity for us all to work together."
Noting fights with the White House over Social Security and judicial nominees, he said, "We don't need a protracted battle" over a Supreme Court nominee and said it would be good if Bush nominated someone "just like" O'Connor.
Whether there is a battle over the nominee is "up to him (Bush), Reid told reporters.
Conservatives want Bush to use the opportunity to shift the court's majority firmly to the right.
"In many ways, the heart and soul of the battle over traditional values centers on the U.S. Supreme Court -- and right now the Court hangs in the balance," said the Christian Coalition of America.
Democrats and Republicans alike urged Bush to consult more over his judicial nominees after a bipartisan deal in May broke a logjam on court appointments.
McClellan said Bush and top White House officials have been consulting.
"The president welcomes people suggesting names. That's part of the consultation process. But not only are we going to consult before the nomination is made, but we'll continue to consult once the nomination is made," McClellan said.
Bush last week called on conservatives to stop criticizing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is considered a top contender for the Supreme Court opening. Conservatives fear he is soft on abortion and would not pursue their agenda with vigor.
At a speech on the war on terrorism in Quantico, Virginia, Bush posed for pictures with Gonzales in what looked like a show of support for his long-time friend. (Additional reporting by Patricia Wilson, Adam Entous and Tom Ferraro)
Who the hell should care what they want?! They lost, they need to get used to acting like losers.
I'm going to wait to see his first pick before I hope for more vacancies.
I think the real questions here are,
1. How much control does Bush really have over how liberal or how conservative the nominees can turn out to be? (Apparently Conservative President Reagan's appointee O' Connor did not turn out to be all that bad for the liberal cause)
2. Does anyone realize that even if upcoming Supreme Court decisions turn out to be conservative, that eventually they can be undone by a future ruling, or by an amendment to the Constitution
-They lost, they need to get used to acting like losers.
Not just any losers, but losers with good sportsmanship.
Great, pose for pics, yuc it up, nurture the long-term friendship, defend him against attack, just don't nominate him for the Supreme Court.
Because if GWB does pick Gonzales, he's got another thing coming. The unbridled fury of his conservative supporters indignant at his apostasy, will have him counting the days until he leaves office, unloved, unsupported and unforgiven.
Here we go again!!! Saturday, it was Reid who was trumping that kind of silly "qualification" for a Supreme Court nominee.
Have these 21st Century Senators never read the writings of the Founders regarding the role of the Judiciary????? If so, don't believe they found a word about "bringing us together." To the Founders, it was all about protecting the liberty of American citizens and dividing the government so that there would be an independent judiciary to interpret the Constitution, as Jefferson said, "in the spirit manifested in the debates."
Jefferson's statement on the subject might inform the discussion about interpretation:
"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
The writer further muddies the water by commenting on the co-called "analysis" of recent rulings to support another fallacious premise, citing Thomas as being an "activist judge" because of rulings overturning laws passed by Congress. That is not judicial activism. That is the proper role of the Court: to examine and interpret and apply the Constitution's provisions to specific actions.
The Left's discussions on upcoming appointments gets even more confused:
In Saturday's radio broadcast from the Left, Senator Reid described the qualifications he wants in a Justice.
Reid: ". . .someone who can build on our national consensus on important issues. Someone with a deep respect for the Constitution. And someone with enough common sense to know that Supreme Court justices should not impose a narrow partisan ideology, but make rulings with an open mind and a big heart."
Later in the broadcast he said the person should "bring us together."
Presidents George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, along with the writer who, with Madison, wrote the series of Essays to explain the Constitution in order to get the States' ratification would be amazed that in the 21st Century the Minority Leader of the United States Senate would display such utter ignorance of the role of the Supreme Court in the limited government they structured.
"Bring us together????"
"Build on our national consensus???"
"An open mind and a big heart???"
Jefferson had a better idea, now, didn't he???
Not a word about big hearts and consensus, or about bringing us together!
Consulting Hamilton, Reid would learn that Hamilton would not approve of the "living Constitution" Democrats either. He advised:
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton
What the Democrats want is to usurp the President's constitutionally assigned role as the "appointer" of Justices in order to accommodate their special interest Far Left supporters.
This President should not be intimidated by them. Two hundred years from now, millions yet unborn may praise him for protecting integrity of the Founders' Constitution.
Jefferson was the first one to realize how potentially dangerous the judiciary could be, and unfortunately he was correct.
Bush should appoint a strong legal mind who will uphold the Constitution and who has integrity and relevent experience.
The president should find five of them, since I think that's how many selections he'll get to make if he picks real justices. If he goes for the middle of the road, maybe he'll get three.
I am really more interested about Alberto's take on the Second Amendment. Also, I am concerned about the tendency of Mexican-Americans from San Antonio to become more liberal as they gain political power, case in point Henry Cisneros, who started out very neutral as mayor of San Antonio, and as he progressed , became very liberal. I believe a similar case can be made about Henry B. Gonzales, US Rep from San Antonio. I don't trust any of them, and I lived there 21 years. John Cornyn was a Judge in S.A. before he was on TX Supreme CT, and then US Senator. I believe that he is trustworthy.
If the Dims don't filibuster the nomination, then Bush made the wrong choice.....
Well-stated. Bush will go down as one of the most failed and unpopular Presidents of all if breaks his promise on this issue.
It said he wants to avoid the mistakes of his father. Appointing Gonzales or anyone that isn't an obvious originalist would be a worse mistake than his father agreeing to raising taxes.
I think that would be a good rule of thumb to use for evaluating a nominee's qualifications. I want a Justice who the Democrats will hate so badly that they will fight like tigers to keep him or her off the court.
Then I want to see that Justice confirmed 55-45 with no abstentions. And why not, don't the Pubbies hold a majority in the Senate? Oh yeah that's right, the Pubbies only hold a theoretical majority. Reid & Co. still hold the actual majority when the RINOs are stirred into the pot.
Reid, who has been tough on Bush, called Tuesday's meeting a "good opportunity for us all to work together."Either this is a calculated move by Reid to undermine conservative support for Bush, or this is not a good sign.
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.