[ConservativeMan55]

No Gonzales! Coburn!

Senator Coburn Holds Hearing Exposing Vaste Waste!

[Betaille]

"“If the President picked Gonzales, it would break the hearts of conservatives,” Buchanan told Human Events."

I agree that Bush should nominate a conservative to replace O'connor, but why is Pat Buchanan being presented as a conservative voice here?

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

And it would be the beginning of the end for Bush among his base, not unlike his father’s breaking his no-new-taxes pledge spelled his defeat in 1992.”

Big problem with this statement. Bush isn't up to re-election, and after the Terri Schiavo incident, his brother has zero chance of running for the President. In other words, the New World Order's agenda will be ahead of that of a re-election strategy.

If there's one thing us conversatives can truly count on, it is that we will be dissapointed 90% of the time, regardless of whether the President, Administration, or Congress is ruled by a majority of Republicans (moderate liberals) or Democrats (left-wing nuts).

[BJungNan]

Here is the best choice for a Supreme Court pick to replace Sandra Day O'Conner.

Fred Thompson

[StonyBurk]

Any unjust Judge who thinks the Constitution says what some judge says it does --and NOT what the clear language and intent of the men who ratified that document meant when it
was drafted- ought NOT be placed in any position of trust. There is no rule of law if the judges are appointed for life to be petty despots-or high priests of the cult of lawless lawmaking.

[Cowboy Bob]

A broad spectrum of nationally recognized conservative leaders is sending a clear message to President Bush: Please, don’t nominate Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Bush nominates Gonzales, the Republicans in the Senate don't have to vote to confirm...

[nathanbedford]

On June 23, when I first heard of the possibility that Bush would nominate Gonzalez to the court, I posted this:

The nomination of Gonzolas to the Court would be a betrayal so emphatic as to rend the party in twain and render very likely the election a Democrat President.

That same day I also posted this:

The scary thing is that I would not put the attempt beyond Bush to whom personal loyalty is a solemn obligation.

I have seen nothing in the weeks since which would cause me to edit either comment.

[Cicero]

I agree about Buchanan, but I think the point the article is making is that conservatives of every kind, from one end of the spectrum to the other, are united in deploring a Gonzalez nomination.

I oppose Gonzalez mainly because he is pro-abortion. But he is also an opponent of the first amendment's clause on religious freedom, an opponent of the second amendment right to bear arms, an opponent of the constitutional principle that all men are equal regardless of race, and an opponent of defending our country against illegal immigrants. And I believe he is weak on property rights, as well.

If that doesn't unite conservatives against him, I don't know what would. Even Buchanan has joined the parade.

[Antoninus]

“Conservatives would be demoralized enraged by a Gonzales appointment,”

There, much better.

[Republican Wildcat]

Gonzales will not be picked to replace O'Connor.