Bush Drops Hints on Supreme Court Choice

AP ^ | 7/16/05 | Darlene Superville

[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.

[SAJ]

Kneejerk? Hardly. Mr. Bush **could** have restated, in this speech, his role models for a nominee as famously mentioned during the campaign. Nowhere in this speech do we see 'constructionist', 'Scalia', 'Thomas', 'originalist' or other words of similar import. We see instead the squishy terms 'values' and 'proud of' and similar feel-goodisms.

Mr. Bush is widely known and respected as a man who says what he means. Fine, that's great. But if that is so, we're going to get another 'values' justice, a la O'Connor.

I'm just taking the man at his stated word, and given the words as stated, that's cause for fear of more of the same.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

That sea of tyranny will swamp us all unless we stay united to oppose Clinton II in 2008.

[You Dirty Rats]

On the other hand, Perot did build the Reform Party from scratch into the feared national player it is today. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[danamco]

What do you expect him to say? "I promise to pick a Supreme Court Justice who will really anger the radical left...

Yes - two or three times in the next year or two.




It's going to be "war," trust me!
They would rather lose wining back the White House than loosing seats on the SC which they are using to further their evil agendas!!!

[deadrock]

Let me know when you have anything substantive to add to the debate. BTW it's 'you're', not 'your.'

[SERKIT]

1) This is a non-story. No "hints" here, move along, nothing to see here.

2) I need one picture, one bunny, one pancake IOW, what's the point of this article?

[Echo Talon]

Let me know when you have anything substantive to add to the debate. BTW it's 'you're', not 'your.'

OK ,Canadian. Not sure why you care...

[ASA Vet]

portraits of the two lowlifes

These two?

[Dane]

Kneejerk? Hardly. Mr. Bush **could** have restated, in this speech, his role models for a nominee as famously mentioned during the campaign. Nowhere in this speech do we see 'constructionist', 'Scalia', 'Thomas', 'originalist' or other words of similar import. We see instead the squishy terms 'values' and 'proud of' and similar feel-goodisms

Uh dude it's a freakin 3 minute radio speech to the American public, not a 45 minute dissertation to the Heritage Foundation.

Get some grounding in real lfe would ya.

[deadrock]

I am not questioning your definition or my definition of conservatism. Freepers should have the right to critise W's actions without having the 'bash basher' tag attached to them.

[Echo Talon]

Did the President write this address? Did he not say, "...and will pledge to faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country"?

[eskimo]

Only in the minds of people like Pat Buchanan and his followers. And BTW, Pat isn't a "conservative".

And many believe the GOP is even less conservative and their "followers" seem to be shrinking exponentially. One can't just attribute that failure to some "boogeyman", one must come to grips with reality and admit that one has been duped.

[SAJ]

See post 161, which would be a fair response to your post, also.

Not really like shooting someone before they take the stand, though, for several reasons. One, politicos don't swear to tell the truth; while Mr. Bush is clearly hugely more honest than his two predecessors, no politico (and especially no president) can realistically be expected to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. That's just fantasy, unfortunately.

Two, in my business, one simply must try to anticipate future developments to some degree, as best can. Three, there seems to me to be legitimate cause for apprehension about the upcoming nominee (again, post 161 provides fuller commentary on this point).

FReegards!

[Echo Talon]

I am not questioning your definition or my definition of conservatism. Freepers should have the right to critise W's actions without having the 'bash basher' tag attached to them.

Well, saying someone has squish policy's then citing NO examples is a really good hint that you are merely a basher.

[eskimo]

That sea of tyranny will swamp us all unless we stay united to oppose Clinton II in 2008.

Political theater can be a powerfull distraction. Don't let it keep you from defendifng your liberty.

[janetgreen]

Republicans need to rethink their position on Free Trade At Any Cost.

I agree. The "free trade" agreements have failed to do what they promised. The politicians who vote for these turkeys are losing any credibility they once had.

[SAJ]

Another squishy term. ''Faithfully interpret''? Bah!

I daresay Earl Warren and Brennan and Douglas all felt that they ''faithfully interpreted'' the Constitution, too.

The term is meaningless withhout context. ''Faithfully interpret'' regarding WHAT, regarding WHICH issues, and how so?

Couldn't Mr. Bush have said even as much as ''faithfully interpret, and not rewrite, the Constitution''? That's not much to ask, and such a statement would have been far more concrete.

[meema]

What is Bush's definition on what is mainstream? Pro illegal immigration?

That's what I continue to be afraid of. That's how he has acted throughout his administration. When he was campaining in 2000, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Now that I have also helped re-elect him, I know my belief in him on this point was stupid.

[Echo Talon]

One, politicos don't swear to tell the truth; while Mr. Bush is clearly hugely more honest than his two predecessors, no politico (and especially no president) can realistically be expected to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. That's just fantasy, unfortunately.

Oh.. Now I see where your coming from... Bush lied people died.

[SAJ]

Sure. Happy to. Just 3 days right after you present an actual substantive argument instead of merely calling names and arguing ad hominem.

Ta-ta.