If a Liberal Supreme leaves...(Vanity)

me

[KantianBurke]

With all the hoopla thats going on surrounding the possible resignation from the Supreme Court by one of its members, a funny thought occured to me. If the retiring member happened to be from the Liberal wing of the Court it be in the best interests of President Bush to nominate...no one. Bluntly, just leave the seat vacant. The benefits to such a position could be:

1) There's nothing in the Constitution or case law that prevents him from doing so. Thus decisions would be based on a more secure 5-3 score rather than the usual uncertain 5-4.

2) The Senate is still in Rat hands and unless President Bush is willing to give up on his promise of appointing strict constructionalists, there's little chance such a person would go through though a "wishy washy" Souter clone might.

3) The Demorats would be in a difficult bind. If the seat was vacant they would be unable to demonize an individual and whip up their supporters into an hysterical frenzy. Or if they complained about Bush being inactive, he could simply call the kettle black and ask why THEY, the Demorats in the Senate, were leaving so many other judicial vacancies.

[KantianBurke]

Freeper thoughts?

[jae471]

4-4 splits...

[Callahan]

A decent plan. Hold it off till after the elections (assuming we come out on top).

[eFudd]

He should renominate Bork. This would keep the Democraps busy until they loose their majority in November.

Can Bush make out of session appointments to the Supreme Court?

[TheLooseThread]

Ummmm..... 6-3 is better than 5-3.

[KantianBurke]

Good question. Has that ever happened? What would the protocol be?

[TheDon]

I like it.

[ClearCase_guy]

I don't exactly see the advantage. If Bush nominates a good, conservative judge what happens?

A) The nominee goes through and we get a 6-3 majority (not likely to happen).

B) The nominee gets held up by the Democrats and the voters see the Dems continuing to play political football with judges (We maintain a 5-3 majority and gain additional voter support. It might happen)

C) The nominee gets held up by the Democrats and the voters don't pay any attention (We maintain a 5-3 majority).

We don't lose anything by trying, IMO.

[KantianBurke]

"and the voters see"

The voters will see what the liberal media and the Demorat party want them to see. To you and I, "Borking" is reprehensible. To the ignorant John Q Public, after being told ad nasuem that Bush's conservative nominee wanted to make abortion illegal, reintroduce slavery and club baby seals, it won't be as galvinizing for obvious reasons. Hence why one shouldn't depend on "what the public sees."

[Dales]

He should renominate Bork.

he he he he

[Gorest Gump]

Can Bush make out of session appointments to the Supreme Court?

No.

[StockAyatollah]

He should renominate Bork.

I agree. That would drive the rats nuts. Besides he is probably the most qualified and brilliant candidate, and he was screwed by the rats and media before.

[nravoter]

If Bush wants to capitalize on the widespread furor over the 9th Circuit Court Pledge of Allegiance ruling, and keep momentum going to elect more conservatives, he should nominate that judge in Alabama who's been fighting to keep the Ten Commandments up in his court room.

[Sonny M]

I know alot of people are saying Bork, but I'd prefer having somone with Borks views, but younger. You want a justice who can stay there for the next 40 years or more.

[Tennessean4Bush]

A 4-4 split scenario is unfair to all. All the time, expense, effort, pain, etc. that goes into appealing to, preparing for, arguing in a supreme court case will run the risk of a no-decision that will double the risk, expense, etc. should both parties come to a split decision.

[votelife]

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.