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.

[Delphinium]

Go back to DU, DUmmie. SAJ, one shouldn't toke at the bong this early in the day and expect to take you seriously.

You are very out of line.

We don’t have Kings in this country. The Constiturion, and the people rule. It is healthy to criticize actions that, even Republican presidents make.

Tell me, do you think everything Bush has done is right?

What about ignoring terrorists being transported across our borders, that he has refused to address? , While making deals with the corrupt Mexican, and Canadian governments.

[SAJ]

The president appears to be taking the high road vis-a-vis (''in regards to'') the Marxists.

Clearly, in context, the Marxists are his opponents. Why in the world would anyone, president or no, ''take the high road'' vis-a-vis one's allies -- they're both already on the same page, there's no 'high' or 'low' road to be taken.

Sheesh.

[jstolzen]

So, you think the Conservative base is going to NOT stay home in '06 and '08 if Dubya does the party wrong by nominating someone who's a compromise with the 'Rats?

Better go think about that one, my friend.

It's not a "crock". Nothing less than the fate of the party hangs on this.

Dubya's father learned the lesson the hard way ("read my lips"). You think the Son would know better, having seen the impact of not doing what you say you're going to do.

[janetgreen]

Sorry, but most of the old conservatives I know seem to believe the present administration is responsible for more massive socialist programs, more lost liberty, more national debt, more shredding of the Constitution and more flagrant political opportunism that even when the Clintoon was the presidential puppet.

That truth deserves a BTTT!!

[danamco]

Probably because the GOP is no longer conservative.


If not, are they liberals???

[jstolzen]

Karl "the great" doesn't impress me one iota.

He's the one who told Tancredo (who should be a National Hero).."go away and don't darken our doorstep [of the WH] ever again".

Yeah, some "the great". Tell one of the true patriots who's concerned about "Problem Number One" (the borders) to take a hike, so you can pander to a few Mexicans. Yup. Really brilliant, that Karl Rove.

Next 911-like attack, come back and tell us again just how Karl is "the great".

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

The President on several occasions has taken the bully pulpit to the American people - about the need for an energy policy - he did it all through the 2004 campaign. I heard him over and over again talk about the need for an energy policy. If you listened to the MSM, you would have missed it. That's why Free Republic and other alternative news sources are so important.

[Gracey]

nominate a true pro-life conservative to the Supreme Court.

---

some pro lifers are do not follow the constitution and are not too conservative. I want someone in the likes of Scalia, who are strict constructionists. The constitution says nothing about pro life.

[advance_copy]

The constitution says nothing about pro life.

The fourteenth and fifth amendments state clearly that no person can be deprived of life without due process of law. You cannot be a strict constructionist and support government issued "medical" licenses to kill unborn babies.

[Echo Talon]

Speak English, maybe you have liberal feelings like the French.

[eskimo]

The Clinton's Crime Syndicate almost destroyed America and will do so if allowed full power again.

In the minds of many a conservative, the destruction of America continues still.

We are hated because this President has resisted the one world Globalist measures as well as the UN garbage.

Many think Bush will, ultimately, follow his daddy's lead and support all significant UN power grabs.

We will have to agree to disagree.

I guess that is so.

[danamco]

Fully agreed. We're well and truly, er, scrod on the illegal alien issue. Too many business want cheap labour, and are willing to fork over BIG bucks to the politicos in order to see that the supply of same isn't stopped, and to ensure that the existing statutes aren't enforced.


If you were not a fabulous trader, say a low-income or non-income family provider, would you be willing to accept the kind of jobs as a "cheap labor," cleaning toilets, picking fruits in South Florida, etc.???

[meema]

Thanks, SAJ.

I had so much fun deciding how to spell "misrememorying"!
Yup! It does go with "strategery", and I was certainly thinking of the president when I thought of it!

[eskimo]

If not, are they liberals???

I doubt political opportunist give a damned how their victims classify them.

[danamco]

One has to wonder why, doesn't one?


We don't know, but maybe you can tell us???

[gunnedah]

Boy did I get some responses and I am thrilled to say the least. To start with I would vote for Hitler before I would a Democrat.I made one mistake when I voted for Ross Perot because papa Bush lied to me about taxes and I thought NAFTA was a mistake but hell I got worse, I got Billy Bob and Hitlery.
Most of you that replied sound like staunch Conservative Republicans and I like that but we have a quandary when it comes to the Republican Party and how do we address it rather than turning power over to the Devil,"Democrats"?
The Republicans in Congress will not stand and fight because too many of them are really Liberal Democrats and they want control if they have to sell their souls. We most certainly need to take a stand on the upcoming openings to the Supreme Court, that is what the last election was really about and the Dems are already ruling us through the courts while they are in the minority. I am looking for answers and we best come up with them quick if America is to survive. I eagerly await answers.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

The President has had 5 years to "follow his daddy's lead" re: power grabs of the UN. He has not done so yet and he will not do so.

[jdm]

"nonsense. He would say that about anyone. This is all fiddle faddle He said he would pick someone like Scalia or Thomas. That's good enough for me."

Scalia or Thomas would be for Chief Justice, though. This article is about replacing O'Connor, not replacing Rehnquist. I, too, would like to see Thomas become Chief Justice when that particular vacancy occurs.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

To start with I would vote for Hitler before I would a Democrat.I made one mistake when I voted for Ross Perot because papa Bush lied to me about taxes and I thought NAFTA was a mistake but hell I got worse, I got Billy Bob and Hitlery."

Thank you for seeing the error of your ways. I have been trying to encourage a few others to see the danger of jumping ship given the hell we face from the Demoniacs should they gain full power. You see it.

[eskimo]

The President has had 5 years to "follow his daddy's lead" re: power grabs of the UN. He has not done so yet and he will not do so.

I hope you are correct but the significant events will likely occur late in this term. Many believe the betrayal will come swiftly and be massive in scope.