Posted on 07/16/2005 8:53:44 AM PDT by advance_copy
WASHINGTON - President Bush gave the nation several clues Saturday about the person he will nominate for a seat on the Supreme Court, except for the most important one — a name.
In his weekly radio address, Bush said his eventual nominee will be a "fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and American values."
His candidate also "will meet the highest standards of intellect, character and ability and will pledge to faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country," the president said.
"Our nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court justice that Americans can be proud of," he said, without revealing the name that many are anxious to hear.
Bush also discussed his recent meeting with Senate leaders of both parties to discuss the nomination and confirmation process for a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor. The first woman to serve on the high court, O'Connor announced July 1 that she is stepping down after 24 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I hope you are wrong, but nothing he has said today gives me any comfort.
What happened to "strict constructionalist"? "In the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas"???
A good example of why it doesn't matter WHO is in power IS the recent Emminent Domain ruling.
WHERE is Dubya on this? A "real" leader and a true conservative would have been calling a prime time news conference the next day, denouncing this catastrophic and anti-American decision by SCOTUS and announcing a Presidential Commission to review and make recommendations - maybe even going so far as an amendment to overturn.
And if not Dubya, some of our leadership in the Senate.
Where's the outrage? Dubya has been silent. The Senate has been silent.
THIS is another reason why I don't feel that they truly "get it" and will pull the football out from beneath us once again. I hope and pray I'm wrong, but..
For most of us, this is yet more evidence that the President will keep his promise to nominate Justices who respect the Constitution and are not activist lawmakers in robes.
For the Bush-hating wingnuts, this is just another excuse to bash the President simply because they don't like his positions on other issues such as immigation or spending.
The President never promised to close the borders and kick all the illegals out. He did promise to nominate conservative judges. He has kept his promises as President, and he will do so again.
The wingnuts are willing to assume the worst before a nominee is even announced. Aty least the French don't surrender until the Germans beat them on the battlefield. The wingnuts will surrender before a shot is fired. Fortunately, success does not depend on these noisy but ultimately irrelevant whiners.
Why don't you just say, "I quit voting because of him"
Voting for them is the same as not voting at all..
That would be icing on the cake.
"who loses?"
Freedom.
'Moderates' of either party are useless, too; one either believes in one's political philosophy and will act upon such belief or one does not and will not. If the latter, then why is the person holding office at all? The salary, the perquisites, the power, the ego trip -- why? Blowing with the prevailing wind, esp. when the wind tends to emanate from the LSM (although, thankfully, less now than formerly), isn't governance by any known definition.
As to 'not having the chance to pick a nominee', well, at this moment, I don't really believe that you or I do have such a chance, now do we? Oh, we can write e-mails and letters, and send faxes, and buttonhole politicians when they come within reach, and attend rallies and so forth, and there's some non-zero probability that such actions might affect a president's decision on a nominee.
It's way the short end of the bet, though, certainly many thousands to one against. In a republic of nearly 300 million, and perhaps 130 million who care about a given issue, no president can possibly have the time available to even listen to any but a comparatively tiny number of voices -- and yours and mine are almost surely not on the list.
This isn't criming any particular president; it's just the way it is, a condition of contest if you like.
The Constitution Party? How many Senators do they have? Who are the SCOTUS nominees of past Constitution Party Presidents?
"I promise to pick a Supreme Court Justice who will really anger the radical left and allow the MSM to rip through his background, possibly dividing the voting base even further" just doesn't sound quite right to me...from a politics standpoint...
Hell, the Constitution, if recited, would not sound quite right "from a politics standpoint" these days. Supporting political gamesmanship is not same same as defending one's liberty.
Somehow I have a feeling that the Republican Party sees the lose of the Buchananites as a good thing.
You are absolutely correct. What does Karl Rove know about political strategery compared to jstolzen?
Probably because the GOP is no longer conservative.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think the CP will grow, because the "two parties" have merged into ONE big liberal mess.
Fair enough and I obviously made use of hyperbole. But citing the need for someone who "represents the mainstream of American law" grates on no one's nerves? I don't consider Clarence Thomas to represent the mainstream of current American law. He's quite a few cuts above.
I know I can't expect a political party that's become increasingly more dominant to talk up reform and bucking the status quo. That's normally what the minority party will do. But that is in essence what I'd want.
Not one single member of the congressional GOP has voted for a tax increase since 1990.You wouldn't call new entitlements a tax increase?
By the way, if President Bush were averse to picking "controversial" nominees, he would have long ago given up on Bolton at the UN, he would have never nominated John Ashcroft in his first term, he would have never nominated Condoleza Rice, he would have never nominated any of the appeals court justices he has, and he would never have nominated Michael Chirtoff for head of Homeland Security (he of anti-Clinton fame during the impeachment of the Heinous one).
Oh ye of little faith.....(some on this thread and all who have already bailed to third party nonsense).
The use of titles-of-office has always struck me as redundant. Everyone is well aware that Mr. Bush is the President.
BTW, this policy is highly similar to that of the WSJ. They will, as a matter of policy, refer to 'President Bush' once, typically at the top of an article, then use 'Mr. Bush' thereafter. There's no disrespect involved.
The Republican party has lost more than "Buchananites" with their globalist agenda.
;^)
When did the Republicans gain both the House and the Senate?
With whose votes? Betray those voters and that will end that majority quite quickly in 06, and I don't even want to think about 08 through 16.
51% is GREAT considering we suffered through Clinton and his vote share.
Pretty good points on the Presidents.
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.