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.

[Echo Talon]

"W" is an idiot.

What do you want him to say in his radio address? He said he would pick someone that will interpret the constitution. Lets see what he does.

[rogue yam]

I do think he is a great President, who has dealt with a lot in his four years. I prefer to comment on actual actions, instead of inventing things to complain about through insane word-parsing.

I agree. Pres. Bush has promised a certain type of judge and has delivered. I expect more of the same, I am happy to say.

Some on this thread complain about wasteful spending (Medicare Rx, education, etc.) and then argue "Because of such spending, we know Bush is no conservative. Therefore he will appoint non-conservative judges." Nonsense! Pres. Bush promised a certain amount of wasteful spending. In my ideal world he would not have done so, but he did, and wasteful spending is what we got.

Why the President's keeping of one promise should indicate his intention to break another promise is a mystery to me.

[thoughtomator]

To be fair, the expectation of us getting screwed is well-founded not only in the President's own history, but also that of the party, and previous GOP Presidents, including his father. Given Bush's attitude on immigration, I wouldn't be surprised if he chose in this situation as well his personal preference rather than the preference of the people who caused him to be elected to the office he holds.

[avg_freeper]

popular will -> "represents the mainstream of American law and American values"

Status quo isn't going to cut it. Perhaps the dynamics of the American judicial system is too complicated to see trends. But that not withstanding the current trend in court decisions would make the ACLU seem mainstream.

And you're right I have lost a good deal of confidence in Republicans in general. I'm starting to agree with Farah, "What's left to conserve?"

[Osage Orange]

".....who the heck has the crystal ball ???"

When you find them....ask them what the top two price movers will be on the NASQ next week. Up or down, doesn't matter.

TIA......

FRegards,

[Dane]

Too bad you don't fancy hardnosed Constitutional constructionists, laddiebuck, because that's to whom you're posting. I've just had quite enough of 'moderate' Pubbies, and way more than enough of bait-and-switch.

i don't fancy "hardnosed" malcontents who go off the handle over a liberal headline either.

[COEXERJ145]

Then go vote for Hillary in 2008. Probably won't be any different than your votes for Kerry and Gore in 2004 and 2000 respectively.

[Kaslin]

Here is the entire transcript of the President's Radio address

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 16, 2005

President's Radio Address

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Under the Constitution, I have the responsibility to nominate a successor to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This past week I met with Democratic and Republican leaders in the United States Senate and sought their views on the process, and their thoughts on the qualities to look for in a potential nominee. Also, my staff has talked with more than 60 members of the United States Senate. Members of the Senate are receiving a full opportunity to provide their opinions and recommendations, and I appreciate their advice.

I will be guided by clear principles as I make my decision. My nominee will be a fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and American values. The nominee will meet the highest standards of intellect, character, and ability, and will pledge to faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country. Our nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court justice that Americans can be proud of.

The American people also expect a Senate confirmation process that rises above partisanship. When I met with Senate leaders, we discussed our shared goal of making sure that the confirmation process is dignified. The nominee deserves fair treatment, a fair hearing, and a fair vote. I will make my nomination in a timely manner so the nominee can be confirmed before the start of the Court's new term in October.

The experiences of the two justices nominated by President Clinton provide useful examples of fair treatment and a reasonable timetable for Senate action. In 1993, the Senate voted on and confirmed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court 42 days after President Clinton submitted her nomination. And despite the significant philosophical differences many senators had with Justice Ginsburg, she received 96 votes in favor of confirmation.

The following year, Justice Stephen Breyer was confirmed 73 days after his nomination was submitted, with 87 votes in his favor. Again, Republican senators in large numbers voted for confirmation of Justice Breyer despite significant philosophical differences. These examples show that the thorough consideration of a nominee does not require months of delay.

As we continue the process to fill the opening on the Supreme Court, we are also moving forward on other important priorities for the American people. This past week, we received more good news on the economy. The 2005 deficit is projected to be $94 billion less than previously expected. I told the Congress and the country we would cut the deficit in half by 2009. This week's numbers show that we are ahead of pace, so long as Congress acts wisely with taxpayer dollars.

This good news on the budget is coupled with other news that shows the economy is strong and getting stronger. Our economy is growing faster than any other major industrialized nation. The unemployment rate is down to 5 percent, lower than the average rate of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. We have created more than 2 million jobs in the past 12 months. More Americans are working today than ever before in our nation's history, and home ownership in America is at an all-time high.

To keep our economy growing and creating jobs, Congress needs to continue working in the upcoming weeks on our pro-growth economic agenda. First, for the sake of our economic security and our national security, the Congress must complete its work on a good energy bill that will reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

Second, the House needs to follow the Senate's lead by approving the Central American and Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement. By lowering trade barriers for our exports, this agreement will level the playing field for America's goods, services and crops, and help create jobs for American workers.

Third, Congress needs to send me a fiscally responsible highway bill that modernizes roads and bridges, improves safety and opens up new job opportunities.

Finally, Congress needs to move forward with Social Security reform. For those of you who were born before 1950, Social Security will not change. But the system has made promises to our younger workers that it cannot pay for. And the cost of fixing the system grows higher with every year we wait. So Congress needs to act now to strengthen Social Security for our children and grandchildren.

The American people expect members of both parties to offer a positive agenda and get things done for our country. By working together in the weeks ahead, I am confident we will achieve positive results for all Americans.

Thank you for listening.

END

[John Galt's cousin]

The MSM (and the 'looney left') seem to consistently label anyone less liberal than Olympia Snowe or as a conservative republican. They also use terms like 'hard core', "extreme", "right wing" etc., ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Conservatives are rather moderate.

they make us sound like thugs who will crush civil liberties and so on - ignoring that we are much more interested in preserving individual liberties - as the constitution prescribed.

I'm intereested in finding examples of truly right wing radicals to cite to my wishy-washy friends when they breezily parrot the MSM characterization of the target of the day.

Do any freepers have ideas of how to counter the theft of the language that the MSM is perpretating?

Thanks

[atlanta67]

""No, it's not rubbish. The left has redefined "conservative" to mean virtually any republican.""


Well if that is true why doesnt the MSM refer to Olymia Snowe, Susan Collins, Mc Cain etc as conservative?

I dont ever recall the gang of 7 RINOS being called conservative even by the NYTs

[Echo Talon]

That's President Bush to you.

[rogue yam]

NO matter who he picks the carping on both sides will be intense.

You are more pessimistic than me. I genuinely expect the President to nominate someone who I will look at and think "Well, based on what is knowable, this nominee is as likely as anyone to be another Clarence Thomas." I will then break out the bubbly and taunt, taunt all nay-sayers!

[GoBucks2002]

No, the actual problem is the Sellout Seven and other RINOs. Bush probably does not want to see a good conservative get "Borked" by the RINOs.

But take heart: His candidate also "will meet the highest standards of intellect, character and ability..."

This rules out most members of Congress.

[Echo Talon]

There is a difference betwixt bashing W and bashing his wishy washy ideology, his sell out policies, and his political appointments.

Your Canadian no wonder.

[bill1952]

I understand your points, Bonnie, and I agree with your sentiment.

The real problem that we are facing is that it may come down to a choice between six of this and a half-dozen of that, when it concerns electing Pubs who act or vote like left wing nuts, or are RINOs at best.

It will happen that much of their base will not turn out to support them with votes, and we will pay, but how else do you get a republican with real conservative values?

Snow, Spector, McCain. We can name a bunch more, huh?

And the raving nut who broke down and cried on the Senate floor? During the Bolton confirmations?

What party does he belong to?

[djf]

Totally correct. And I, for one, am saddened by the departure of O'Conner.
She wrote the opinions on a couple states rights cases, New York V. United States for one, and even though many here think she has deviated wdely from original intent, actually, she has a good understanding of federalism.

Next to Thomas, she is probably the strongest one there. But nobody anymore knows the difference between "law" and "equity".

We need somebody on the court who is willing to say "Hey, dude, this is not a federal issue. Go file something in your own state."

[RobFromGa]

What is everyone's guess on the timing of the nomination?

The Senate breaks for August recess in two weeks and doesn't come back till Sept 6, the Tuesday after Labor Day. That is a five week recess.

Does Bush nominate someone before they leave (and give five weeks for the press to smear them) or does he nominate the week before they come back?

Discuss. :-)

[Ciexyz]

Sounds good so far.

[jimbergin]

Saj,
Why do you think the President will not nominate someone we will want. He did say " will pledge to faithfully interpret the Constitution". I know it is not the words you used, but he has said similar things often enough that until I see the nominee, I will assume it will be someone I want also.

[John Galt's cousin]

There are very few conservatives here, there are a lotta wannabe conservatives. A Republican doesn't automatically fall into the category of conservative and the President is a perfect example of that. The fact that so many ordinary Republicans think of themselves as "conservatives" simply means they bought into the leftist propaganda that anybody to the right of Barbara Boxer is a conservative.

You are absolutely correct.