Posted on 09/06/2005 4:14:43 PM PDT by RWR8189
WITH JOHN ROBERTS sailing toward confirmation last week, President Bush had the O'Connor seat "won." The Court was set to move one click to the right (so to speak). Then Chief Justice William Rehnquist died. The president chose to move Roberts over to fill the Rehnquist slot--thereby re-opening the vacancy created by Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement.
One understands the attraction of Roberts as chief. But with this action, in one fell swoop, the president deprived himself and his supporters of the easiest argument for his next nominee: that surely a reelected conservative president is entitled to replace a conservative justice--Rehnquist--with another conservative.
So now everything rides on Bush's nerve. Is he willing to fill the O'Connor seat with a conservative, and can he then make an effective case for that nominee to the Senate and the country? Bush will have three huge advantages in such an effort--a 55-seat GOP Senate majority, popular support for a more restrained and conservative Court, and a plethora of well-qualified conservative candidates (consider Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, Maura Corrigan, and Miguel Estrada, for starters). And there are in fact attractive arguments to be made for each of these candidates that go beyond the generic ones and that would make prospects for confirmation good.
So there is no good reason for Bush to flinch. But he could. He may be rattled by the criticism for mishandling hurricane Katrina, and he may think it would be better to avoid too big a fight over the Court. He's always wanted to nominate his attorney general, Alberto Gonzales--he likes him, is loyal to him, and would appreciate the symbolism of putting the first Hispanic on the court. So he might be sorely tempted to do so now.
Would any of his aides have the nerve to tell him that as Supreme Court jurists go, Gonzales would be mediocre--and not a solid bet to move the court in a constitutionalist direction? Would any of them have the nerve to explain to the president that a Gonzales nomination would utterly demoralize many of his supporters, who are sticking with him and his party, through troubles in Iraq and screw-ups with Katrina, precisely because they want a few important things out of a Bush presidency--and one of these is a more conservative court? Would any of them tell the president that risking a core item in the conservative agenda for the sake of either friendship, diversity, or short-term political spin, would be substantively wrong, and politically disastrous?
Maybe. And maybe Bush doesn't need all these reminders.
But even astute presidents occasionally make big mistakes. And one worrisome straw in the wind is the comment by Bush loyalist John Cornyn (R-Tex.) in today's Washington Post, who, according to the Post, thinks the nominee will likely be "a woman or a minority." Cornyn offered what the Post described as "a vigorous defense of Gonzales." "He would be a very good nominee and one that I would be happy to support," Cornyn said. "I've read about these concerns from some conservatives, and I really wonder where they are getting some of these strange ideas."
Yikes. One hopes Cornyn is just being polite to Gonzales and Bush. Or has he been asked to lay the groundwork for a Gonzales nomination? Did Cornyn talk with Karl Rove yesterday, between the Roberts announcement and his interview with the Post? If so, we conservative constitutionalists are in real trouble. More important, so is Bush.
William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard.
Was Kristol overseas when Roberts was first nominated?
If Bush was prepared to nominate a conservative for the O'Connor seat then, there is no reason to believe he won't nominate a conservative now.
What a stupid question...
He is good at what he does. And to err is human.
Kristol wouldn't know a real conservative if he/she kicked him in the ass. He was McLame's buddy as I recall. And his record of being wrong on things is immense. I trust Dubya a lot more than Kristol and other Weekly Standard lites.
Billy Crystal is a more on the money political pundit than William Kristol. Bush seized the opportunity to grab the CJ and did it. Kristol is playing checkers Bush is playing chess.
"Kristol wouldn't know a real conservative if he/she kicked him in the ass."
He certainly isn't daddy's boy. Bill is out to make headlines and he doesn't care about ideology if he gets his name in the papers and his face on TV.
Just IMO, of course!
If it isn't Edith Jones I'm taking my vote and going home!
Not sure where all the hostility to Kristol is coming from...!! Anyway, what I am wondering about is whether Bush can nominate and get confirmed an O'Connor replacement (hopefully a conservative) in time for that person to participate in the partial-birth abortion and parental notification cases now on the Court's docket. Dems will be motivated to keep O'Connor on the Court as long as possible!!!! I think they will hold their fire and concentrate on the O'Connor replacement, particularly if that person is a true conservative.
Janice Rogers Brown wouldn't be good enough for you?
"the president deprived himself and his supporters of the easiest argument for his next nominee: that surely a reelected conservative president is entitled to replace a conservative justice--Rehnquist--with another conservative."
There is no argument that will assuage the clamor of the left in selecting Supreme Court justices. What would be a huge mistake would be for Bush to acknowledge that a nominee has ANY political leaning, left or right, and that it is relevant to the nominee's confirmation. That reduces the process to a quid pro quo compromise that the Democrats would never observe with a Democratic president.
Amen
Kristol is not in the President's inner circle.
No one that is speaking is in the President's inner circle.
Everyone was wrong about who he would pick last time.
Ergo, all people spreading these doomsday scenarios are nothing more than rumor mongers.
Kristol WAS the person to report on O'Connor's resignation, but O'Connor is a 'moderate". It is not a stretch to imagine kristol is well connected to the 'moderates' in D.C. If he reports on kennedy or Stevens leaving, I'd pay him attention. Otherwise, no.
Bush can nominate someone to be on the Court in time. The question is Congress and rule of thumb is to expect disappointment from them.
Kristol is the mouthpiece of McCain. This is where hostility arises.
Isn't Ted 68?
Advantage to placing the youngerst possible man on the bench to consider.
What about James Rogan, previously rep from California?
Awesome conservative.
I would enjoy the confirmation of Brown though. The damn dims just about hyperventilate at the mention of Browns name, that would be fun.
Yeah, OK,
" If it isn't Edith Jones, or Janice Rogers Brown, I'm taking my vote and going home!"
I was thinking about Olsen as well. Truly. I think he deserves consideration for sure.
In governing Bush has show all the political skill of a wet noodle.
Yeah, GW tried so hard to reach out to the other side, but then 911 - boom - he showed his oats. For years now, the Libs have been tring to tear him down - can you imagine what it must be like? - vilified every day by all major newspapers, TV networks, Hollywood, etc, ect. The temptation to appease must be overwhelming. I sure hope he understands, that we, the red states will take care of his legacy, if he will remain the conservative CEO for just two more years. He might outshine Reagan by 7 years to 5.
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.