Why not? You want "Brownie" in the SC next? Bush is acting like a King not a President and this "royal" pick is offensive... The SC is not where "loyalty" to a friend is rewarded. It's a place where "loyalty" to the constitution is rewarded.
Bush is ticking off a lot of good people...
The President must choose the Supreme Court nominee from the list provided by "some" in his party, specially if this "some" is made up of a lot of political pundits.
President Bush is breaking the law by not following the Constitution and therefore we shall call for his impeachment.
End of extreme sarcasm.
He's not acting like a "King" he is entitled to choose whoever he wants and the senate can either accept or reject it.
If she withdraws, a new name will be put forward and it won't be from the approved list of the National Review "corner".
Good leaders don't give a damn who they tick off, they do what they consider to be the right thing and damn the consequences to their popularity.
What Bush is doing is acting entirely within his authority as the duly elected President of these United States.
His pick is offensive to some, not to everyone, but that doesn't matter one iota anyway. She will first have to get past the Judicial Committee and then the entire Senate before being confirmed or not. Stopping the proccess anywhere short of that is anarchy.
Here is what I found on the Heritage Foundation site concerning appointing SCJ's. I do not see in any of this, any Constitutional clause stating that YOU (or any pundit or self-declared "Base") has any right to, or any obligation from the President, to seek approval from ANYONE other than the Senate! Now wouldn't a "true" CONSTRUCTIONALIST wish to adhere to the "original" intent of the Framers?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/AmericanFoundingandHistory/wm800.cfm
"Appointments Clause
The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. . . .
(Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)
This clause contemplates three sequential acts for the appointment of principal officers—the nomination of the President, the advice and consent of the Senate, and the Appointment of the Official by the President. This clause applies to principal officers in contradistinction to inferior officers, whose appointment is addressed in the next portion of the clause. Although the Senate must confirm principal officers, including Ambassadors and Supreme Court Justices, Congress may choose to require that any officers whose office “is established by law” be confirmed by the Senate, whether they be inferior or not.
The important questions for principal officers and their confirmation are, first, whether the President has plenary power of nomination or whether the Constitution limits this power by requiring the President to seek prenomination advice; second, whether the President must nominate only those who meet qualifications set by Congress; and, third, whether the Senate has plenary power to reject nominees or whether that power is circumscribed by some standard.
Both the debates among the Framers and subsequent practice confirm that the President has plenary power to nominate. HE IS NOT OBLIGED TO TAKE ADVICE FROM THE SENATE ON THE IDENTITY OF THOSE HE WILL NOMINATE, NOR DOES THE CONGRESS HAVE AUTHORITY TO SET QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRINCIPAL OFFICERS. The Senate possesses the plenary authority to reject or confirm the nominee, although its weaker structural position means that it is likely to confirm most nominees, absent compelling reasons to reject them.
The very grammar of the clause is telling: the act of nomination is separated from the act of appointment by a comma and a conjunction. Only the latter act is qualified by the phrase “advice and consent.” Furthermore, it is not at all anomalous to use the word advice with respect to the action of the Senate in confirming an appointment. The Senate’s consent is advisory because confirmation does not bind the President to commission and empower the confirmed nominee. Instead, after receiving the Senate’s advice and consent, the President may deliberate again before appointing the nominee.
The purpose of dividing the act of nomination from that of appointment also refutes the permissibility of any statutory restriction on the individuals the President may nominate. The principal concern of the Framers regarding the Appointments Clause, as in many of the other separation of powers provisions of the Constitution, was to ensure accountability while avoiding tyranny. Hence, following the suggestion of Nathaniel Gorham of New Hampshire and the example of the Massachusetts Constitution drafted by John Adams, the Framers gave the power of nomination to the President so that the initiative of choice would be a single individual’s responsibility but provided the check of advice and consent to forestall the possibility of abuse of this power. Gouverneur Morris described the advantages of this multistage process: “As the President was to nominate, there would be responsibility, and as the Senate was to concur, there would be security.”
The Federalist similarly understands the power of nomination to be an exclusively presidential prerogative. In fact, Alexander Hamilton answered critics who would have preferred the whole power of appointment to be lodged in the President by asserting that the assignment of the power of nomination to the President alone assures sufficient accountability:
[I]t is easy to show that every advantage to be expected from such an arrangement would, in substance, be derived from the power of nomination which is proposed to be conferred upon him; while several disadvantages which might attend the absolute power of appointment in the hands of that officer would be avoided. In the act of nomination, his judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate, should fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he were to make the final appointment. The Federalist No. 76."
>>>"Bush is acting like a King not a President and this "royal" pick is offensive... The SC is not where "loyalty" to a friend is rewarded. It's a place where "loyalty" to the constitution is rewarded."
I agree 100 percent. This is looking like a bad case of hubris on Bush's part. His cavalier attitude on limiting legislation by judges may have already caused damage enough to split the party. This is a core issue.
Hoppy