Bush to speak at 11:15 EDT (O'Connor)

[cll]

Per Foxnews.com banner

[La Enchiladita]

You are right. I'll put my money on it. President Bush values life.

[WOSG]

My goodness - Theodore always sees the negative side of things...

one of our most unreliable "republican" votes on USSC retired. And they did it at a time when Hillary isn't President ... this is GOOD.

I'm optimistic: Bush will nominate someone who will have a better record for conservatives than OConnor. He will not nominate Gonzalez (and the reason he won't is simple: He just moved him into an important job 6 months ago.)

Short list: Luttig, Garza, Cornyn, McConnell.

I'm betting on Luttig - Bush likes to push all his chips on the table and Luttig is a real conservative. Dems will have fits, yet Luttig is the most qualified nominee out there.

Expect the 'nuclear option' pulled sometime in October to get Luttig on the bench, and a 58 yes - 42 vote confirming.

[cake_crumb]

Democrats are ALWAYS warning Bush....its as common as "Muslim outrage over (current event here)"

[WOSG]

"How about Alex Kozinski of the 9th circuit apptd by Reagan?
Age 55"

Good suggestion!!!!

[Theodore R.]

and the reason he won't is simple: He just moved him into an important job 6 months ago.)

And...FDR moved HST into the vice presidency on Jan. 20, 1945, but by April 12, HST had left the vice presidency forever. Also, many attorneys general often serve for short periods of time, as with former Senator Saxbe in the Nixon administration? Or was it Ford?

[PhiKapMom]

Can you tell I have had it on here with these constant whiners and people that stir the pot from the 3rd party to the liberal types on here or you could say "Hate Bush and Republican" crowd? Fighting back now -- tired of reading crap and not posting against it -- those days are over.

[WOSG]

"The odds of a white conservative judge being confirmed is low."

I think that's baloney ... Bush could and should nominate white-male conservative Judge Michael Luttig ... if the Dems try to filibuster, they will fall into a trap, hello nuclear option - we win 58-42.

But assuming Bush is itching to nominate a Hispanic, there is a perfectly respectable conservative Judge on hand with the right name: Judge Garza.

---

WaPo on him

Emilio M. Garza, 57, is a judge for U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and has been on the short list for a Supreme Court nomination before.

(
Justice Department officials interviewed Garza in 1991, when he was among a handful of candidates being considered by President George H. W. Bush to succeed Justice Thurgood Marshall. But Garza then had only three years of experience on the federal bench and his views on many issues were unknown. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas instead.

Garza, who will turn 58 in August, would make history as the first Hispanic ever nominated to the high court.

The former Marine captain earned bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Notre Dame and graduated from the University of Texas School of Law. He practiced law in his native San Antonio for 11 years and served as a state district judge for a year before President Reagan nominated him to the U.S. District Court in 1988. Three years later Bush elevated him to the 5th Circuit.

Since then Garza has developed a reliably conservative judicial record that includes criticism of the Roe V. Wade abortion decision of 1973. In 1997, Garza sided with the majority in upholding a lower court decision that struck down parts of a Louisiana law requiring parents to be notified when a minor child seeks an abortion. In his concurring opinion, however, he expressed doubts about whether Roe v. Wade was well-grounded in the Constitution.

"[I]n the absence of governing constitutional text, I believe that ontological issues such as abortion are more properly decided in the political and legislative arenas," Garza wrote. ". . . . [I]t is unclear to me that the [Supreme] Court itself still believes that abortion is a 'fundamental right' under the Fourteenth Amendment. . . ."

[Cicero]

I'm generally a Bush supporter. But this is a real possibility. I think we owe it to Bush to give him a warning what the consequences will be if he lets his friendship for Gonzalez outweigh his principles and his political sense.

If he doesn't nominate Gonzalez, fine. Then none of this warning criticism applies.

I had no objections to Gonzalez as Attorney General.

[WOSG]

"And...FDR moved HST into the vice presidency on Jan. 20, 1945, but by April 12, HST had left the vice presidency forever."

huh? So was FDR planning to die 4 months after that appointment? your comment makes zero sense.

Being the nation's AG is an *important* job, it will require another confirmation to get a replacement, it's not an easy process, etc. If Bush was 100% determined to put Gonzalez on the bench, he would have done it already.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Sowell is 75 years old though.blockquote>. . . which is why he wouldn't be considered for a full appointment. But a recess appointment is only temporary.

[Theodore R.]

Three consecutive attorneys generals (1972-75), Richard Kliendienst, Elliot L. Richardson, and William Saxbe, served 11 months, four months, and 13 months, respectively. It is not uncommon for attorneys general to serve short periods of time before taking other assignments.

And FDR may have well known that he would not complete his fourth term. FDR did not keep HST informed if he thought he would not remain long in the presidency. HST knew nothing about the Manhattan Project until after assuming the presidency.

The point is: Gonzales serving seven or eight months as attorney general before going to the Supreme Court would not be unusual. I hope Gonzales is NOT the choice.

[Theodore R.]

The attorney general is an important job, but it did not become part of the Cabinet until 1870, when the Department of Justice was created. Early attorneys general came and went, such as future Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, brother-in-law of Francis Scott Key.

[FreeReign]

The class interests and class prejudices of Senators (especially Republicans) are at odds with those of the common people.

The electorate votes for these senators. The senators may not be so out of touch with the "comon people" as you believe.

It will take a President with a very clear Constitutional vision and a large Senate majority to fix this problem.

Clearly we need to elect a lot more Constitution-friendly senators. But, clearly we need a lot more Constitution-friendly people in the electorate to do that.

I blame the electorate.

[ohioWfan]

Fighting back now -- tired of reading crap and not posting against it -- those days are over.

GOOD! It needs to be done, and I thank you for stepping in and speaking up for the truth!

[WOSG]

You produce interesting trivia that is not pertinent to the point.

The Democrats have already shown their unreasoning and unrelenting obstructionism on John Bolton and many other qualified nominees. Bush plays poker, and he knows that the key to winning is having a winning hand when the other guy puts all their chips down. well, the Democrats will have to move their chips in if Luttig is the nominee - they *will* filibuster, and we *will* bust up the obstructionist game with the 'consitutional option', to save the USSC, the circuit nominees, and the next "John Bolton" to come in the Liberal crosshairs.

Luttig is the choice. He will be sworn in by October 10th, 2005.

My wish, your wish, reality. MAKE IT SO:
president@whitehouse.gov

[WOSG]

"How many US Senators want to be put on the spot by a reversal of Roe v. Wade?

I venture to guess that it's less than 30."

You venture wrong. An attempt by liberal Senators to affirm support for Roe v Wade failed in the Senate, and at least 45 Senators, all Republicans are solid on pro-life.

"This being so, it is very much in the interest of a large bipartisan majority to have these "social issues" referred to a forum which is unreviewable and whose members are not subject to losing their jobs by failure to be reelected."

It's in the interest of *LIBERALS* that the 'divisive' social issues that separate them from 75% majorities be kept in the courts. Liberal elites are very powerful and cow the irresolute among politicians through media brow-beating.

But the American *people* are against judicial activism.

[Voice in your head]

I think that at least one member of the Supreme Court should be an average schmoe with absolutely no legal training, but lots of common sense. My father is a truck driver and formerly a welder and a construction worker. He reads and writes at about the 8th grade level, but he's got common sense to spare. Someone like him would not have been duped by a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo and come to the conclusion that the government should be able to seize his home via eminent domain, so that an office building could be put in its place. He probably would have jumped over the bench and kicked the lawyer's ass. I think we need that kind of fresh perspective on the bench.