Posted on 07/05/2005 7:44:32 PM PDT by nj26
And as for the Senate -- recall that SCOTUS has been under expansionist rule since Hugo Black was nominated by FDR in 1937. It's taken a long time to get to the point we are at today. The 'Rats have used every dirty trick and have played chicken with the filibluster. They are running out of options -- proof of that is the recent votes to let Pryor, Brown and Owen through.
So the NY Times says it and you believe it.
I understand concern, but this is a different era and we're far more educated than we were then that a "Republican" does not equal a "constitutionalist". Bush has given no reason to doubt him on this point. The people circulating the name of Gonzales have no clue what Bush is thinking, they aren't in his close circle. If they were, they wouldn't be talking. The people that know what's on his mind do not leak.
On his record, Bush deserves the benefit of the doubt. Just as you won't be secure if the nominee isn't a 100% known quantity, we know Bush is a known 100% quantity on the issue of Constitutionalist judges. He would have to establish a new precedent than the method he has operated within for more than one term to not deserve a degree of Faith.
The GOP Senate is another matter. They haven't earned any good will. To ask for faith based on their record is unreasonable and I will not tell groups to quiet down all thngs considered.
The only thing I will state is that while they have the right to object to Gonzales, some people owe him an apology for making opposition personal.
Wise words indeed. Sounds like the WH has a good strategy for PR-bashing the Dems on this. Let's hope they are ruthless about it.
can you name some cses where she went wrong prior to 2000?
At least Souter was balanced with Thomas. Ike named Brennan and Warren. Gawd!
Miss Marple, you mean you don't get into a frenzy over a story from a source that nobody on this forum trusts about a putative nominee who hasn't been nominated? Sounds like you haven't been getting your Kool Aid.
the right is being much too public about their opposition.
it makes whomever he chooses look like a tool of the far right.
I believe this is the same lack of confidence which said that we wouldn't ever invade Iraq.
If you say so...
Look people, what we want is a nominee who is more conservative than O'Connor. Period.
It doesn't have to be a nominee that is going to stand up and throw conservatives red meat by stating publicly that he or she will support all our issues. It doesn't have to be a nominee that has a library of writings on staunchly conservative themes.
It just has to be a nominee who is more conservative than O'Connor. Even a little bit more conservative is a victory. We have GOP senators up for re-election next year from blue states. Rick Santorum is one and he's in for a tough battle. There is no reason to award that seat to a Dem by letting him be painted as an extremist.
What's the call. Is Gonzales more or less conservative than O'Connor?
IMO, Republicans were too naive in the amount of damage that could be done by some nominees otherwise they may not have allowed O'Connor's, Kennedy's and Souter's to pass.
This is a different day, a different age, the naivety is gone. And I share your trust of the President. There are those that think because G.W.B. isn't solid on immigration that they cannot trust him on Judicial picks. This is wrong headed. Bush has always been honest about his immigration policy. He was honest about his desire to appoint constitutionalists. One people disagree, one people agreed with. On both he has misled no one and operated as he stated he would.
It is the Senate that fears a fight, the senate that grants the Dems leniacy, the Senate that prefers to be liked rather than right. I understand fear the senate will blow it. I do not understand the hostility to the President at this time.
That is what we are seeing here.
Why people would think that someone who RE-NOMINATED 20 judges who were filibustered in the last session, who nominated people like Janice Rogers Brown, who has always said he would nominate strict constructinists, would suddenly do something irrational.
The President is asking everyone to tone things down and be civil. It is not an unreasonable request.
Sounds like they've been polling democrats because the above phrase is right from the left's talking points.
President Bush and his advisors don't seem to understand, if they don't get it RIGHT with the Judges, the Republicans are going to lose support AND elections.
NOW is NOT the time for conservatives to be quiet. It's the time for us to speak out LOUD and CLEAR about our preferences.
Does the president and his advisors really think we take our marching orders from them?
It's wise to figure that the president might be considering Gonzales and that a fulling airing of concerns is in order.
It's not wise to figure that the president is considering Gonzales and that we should be burning bridges based on such.
Don't you agree?
Exactly!!!
One thing Bush has been good on is Judges, so I think he will make a good choice, which probably mean he will disapoint me yet again. But I will hold me fire until he makes his appointment.
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.