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 ...
LOL.......you beat me to it!
Hint? What hint? Mainstream is one of those "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" terms. Mainstream to the democrats is not mainstream to the conservatives.
I'm a trader, m'friend, and all a trader can do when the mkt is closed is to prepare his upcoming reaction(s) to developments that are perceived as likely to occur when the mkt does open.
Regarding SCOTUS just now, the mkt is indeed closed, and will remain so until Mr. Bush actually nominates someone or until a second justice retires, whichever event comes first.
By way of example, if you happen to believe that hurricane Emily is going to make a right turn, not make landfall in the Yucatan, and steam ahead into the Western Gulf, why then just now you'd be making preparations to get long some amount of CL or NG come Sunday night, right?
However, a more apt example would be to consider (metaphorically, of course) Mr. Bush as an option salesman. He sold several million of them at the last election, and good for him. Unfortunately, our metaphorical options here did not all have the same terms of contract; some number of the optionholders are going to get stiffed. And so also, in the real, non-metaphorical world, the voters.
It's merely a question of who is going to be stiffed, and how badly.
Who knows, Mr. Bush might do the sensible and Constitutional thing and nominate Judge Brown. Or anyone named Edith. In which case(s), a different group of voters will have been stiffed.
If Bush nominates Gonzalez, his entire political ediface will come crashing down in flames, and the conservative cause will take maybe 10 or 15 years to recover from the damage. The Republicans will lose all the momentum they have picked up over the past three elections.
IF.
On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with taking back the word "mainstream" from its liberal kidnappers. What do Freepers want him to say, "I'm going to nominate an extreme conservative"?
There's nothing wrong with anything Bush said. It's a nice, calming, confidence building statement. The acid test will come when we see what he does.
Oh, good heavens.
For your information, I've voted (R) my entire adult life.
Kerry was a far left whack job and dangerous to the country to boot. And Gore was worse.
I voted for Dubya both times. But I (and I'm sure the tens of millions of others who sent him to the WH) expect RESULTS.
There comes a point in time (NOW) when we've all just had enough of the broken promises, and expect people to do what they SAID that they will do.
And Dubya sure ain't telegraphing THAT at this point.
I'd wager a significant amount of $$s that he's going to sell out the base on this. But, will be the first to be very happy, and to eat major crow if I'm wrong. (Which I pray to God that I am!)
This thread needs your bushbot graphic...
Snotty reply; how does it feel to be out there with no chance of EVER having power or the chance to pick a nominee?
""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?""
Do you realise that the GOP is more conservative than it has been at anytime since 1932?
-Ronald Reagan raised taxes to support Social Security
-Barry Goldwater opposed the 1964 tax cuts and in fact opposed all tax cuts until 1981.
-Gerald Ford supported the ERA, abortion and gun control
-Nixon, well the most liberal president since FDR
-Not one single member of the congressional GOP has voted for a tax increase since 1990.
-Finally the GOP is a party not a movement, unlike conservatism and the GOP only got 51`% of the vote in 2004 for President
What has happen to some conservatives is that they have won so many elections since 1980 (aside from GHW Bush, other conservatives did well in 1992), combined with the ability of these conservatives to communicate better with each other via internet etc, has coused them to lose their pragmatism and to demand absolute idealogical purity. so much so that I have heeard people on here claim they wont vote GOP ever again because Bolton hasnt ben confirmed or that the GOP didnt go nuclear on Bolton. These are not people who are capable of governing and keeping conservatism a growing movement
You are of course correct. Pres. Bush is calm, and level headed and there is nothing objectionable in these words.
It takes some serious levels of paranoia to see sellout in these words. I suspect a tin foil shortage in the time leading up the nomination.
From this solar system?!?
Well that changes everything.
Clearly you are an expert on the subject of idiocy.
The defeatism is firmly rooted in your supposition that the options of those of us who want originalists will be the ones "stiffed". The man said he wanted strict constructionists. Until he shows he was lying, I'll believe him.
Nice job leaving off Coolidge there. Our last conservative President.
Problem is we voters are between a rock and a hard place.... vote dem and watch them more more towards the ACLU/Socialism/higher taxes/even looser borders than we have now, etc... vote Republican and they just get lazier by the day thinking they have us where they want us...
I'm still reeling from the border vote yesterday and why the senate wasn't able to out majority Schumer, Klinton, Kennedy and Kerry....
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!
Yea, well I know how it is on this forum recently, and if "their" guy doen't get picked ALL hells gonna break loose.
Be it Estrada, Brown, Luttig I know he will be bashed no matter what he does.
Now, Mr. Bush has to trade at some point, a nominee must be named sooner or later. The unanswered question at this time is whether he is more interested in getting a nominee confirmed easily(a 'popular' choice, if you will), or in holding to his prior pronouncements and having to fight for a nominee whose Constitutional views are generally originalist.
Mr. Bush is widely known for not going out of his way to pick a fight, and that's fine. However, sometimes a fight is necessary.
We'll soon see if Mr. Bush is as good as his words, or if he's just another mouth-trader.
You're dreaming. Name Republican senator who would vote against the most moderate judge Bush would nominate (Gonzales for example)? Not one would.
However I think there has been way too much preemptive weeping and wailing about this. Bush's appellate court appointments have been excellent. There is no reason to think his SCOTUS appointments won't be also, despite what Bill Krystol says.
ok since 1928 then. Hoover was quite liberal for his time
His statement does not imply that. You are infering it.
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.