ABC radio news and NYT speculate - Bush has decided-Specter called to WH

ABC News | 07/18/05 | self

[mysonsfuture]

ABC News Radio-10:00 CST-Bush has decided on Supreme Court nominee. Spector called to WH tonight to discuss. Expected to be "mainstream".

[stocksthatgoup]

Look at Specter's latest statements. The guy is a sellout along with Hagel, McCain and a gaggle of other RINOs.

[The Raven]

Mainstream? It has to be Chirac

[Iwo Jima]

Originalists are pro-active. They are activists in supporting and protecting the original intent of the Framers as set forth in the Constitution. It is the sacred duty of a Supreme Court justice to be as active as possible in ruling in accordance with the Constitution, and that means paying scant attention to stare decisis.

When a ruling is Consitutionally wrong, the Court must overturn it as soon as possible whether the rogue decision was from the previous term or 100 years ago.

The misguided concept that a liberal court can wrongly decide all manner of cases and then future courts are just stuck with that is not and has never been consistent with originalism. Because the liberal courts are never "stuck" with a properly decided case, stare decisis only serves to further the liberal agenda with the complicit non-activist conservatives as accessories to the wrong.

[Mo1]

Wow .. freepers are everywhere with the news

[hineybona]

Mark Levin..why not?

[HateBill]

My surmise: If Specter is being called and A Great Per heard this from Sanctorum's office, President Bush selected someone from Pennsylvania because the "home state Senators" who will introduce the nominee would be Specter and Santorum.

[Iwo Jima]

A couple years ago I had a case before the 5th Circuit and I thought that Edith Clement was going to be on the panel, so I started reading her cases. I couldn't form any opinions about her judicial philosophy as her writings were few and very non-specific.

I will be very upset if she is nominated to the Supreme Court. She is a pig in a poke. If another Bush says "trust me, I know what's inside the poke," I'm not willing to do so. This is not what I worked for or would find remotely acceptable.

We have the chance to appoint any number of originalists to the Court and begin the long process of turning the Court around. Clements on the bench is highly unlikely to be much of an improvement over O'Connor, if any.

[prisoner6]

bumpers for laters

prisoner6

[Iwo Jima]

So glad that you said that. This mantra of "you never weighed in on someone who wasn't even being seriously discussed until she started being seriously discussed means you can't discuss her" is a bunch of bull.

[madison10]

Specter was DA in Philly. He is well-grounded in law.

Specter? Awww...don't say that.

[AFPhys]

I'm thinking this is a semantics game...the President is trying to co-opt the word "mainstream" and choose a conservative, indicating that that *is* mainstream.

Given that polls now are consistently showing Americans to be more "conservative" than "liberal", he's right: Being Conservative IS mainstream in America.

Of course, sitting here at this liberal university, it is hard to see that.

[hershey]

YES!!!!!! Here's hoping GW told Spector to sit down and shut up.

[LibertarianInExile]

I ran a WL search just to see if I could find a single opinion, even dicta, in her analysis. I must have looked through 40 cases and I ain't found crap. She's a master of terse, and that's great and all, but not for this kind of nomination. I want the truth, and believe me, I can handle it.

"If another Bush says 'trust me, I know what's inside the poke,' I'm not willing to do so. This is not what I worked for or would find remotely acceptable."

100% right. No more 'trust me.' Not on this. I'll trust him on reading the CIA reports. I'll trust him on what's up with the budget and what pork he needs to toss out. I'll trust him that the war was necessary. But I will not trust ANY Republican again on an unproven nominee. A KNOWN conservative had better get the nod. No more Souters!

[LibertarianInExile]

It's all about quelling the Souter-haters. Gotta put them down because if the RINOs don't, this nominee won't sneak through. Slime the critics, then slide through another RINO...but that won't fly this time. Too many people are tired of O'Connors and Kennedys and Souters. We've worked too hard too long to get screwed again and smile.

[Iwo Jima]

Total agreement.

[Pravious]

"I loathe this group representation thingie. "

Me, too. First time I ever thought an unmentionable word in relation to Laura Bush was when I heard her "I want it to be a woman!" comment.

I thought it was the RATS who revelled in that kind of thing... to hell with who's BEST for the job, let's get a "type"! You know: "Isn't it WONDERFUL? We have the first Arab-American, Transgender on the court!" ... gakkk.

Not that I care if it's a woman, particularly - as long as it's a CONSERVATIVE woman (100%) ... but it's repugnant to me that that should be the deciding factor.

[Pravious]

"Mark Levin..why not?"

Ahhhhh.....
Yeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssss............. :-) :-)

[Miss Marple]

If she has been a judge since 1991, she must have a reasonable written record. She is NOT a Souter. She belongs to the Federalist Society, not exactly a harbinger of liberal leanings.

I am fascinated by how everyone predicts all sorts of poor choices by the President, given his track record, which is very good on judicial appointments and the fact that he keeps his word.

[advance_copy]

My surmise: If Specter is being called and A Great Per heard this from Sanctorum's office, President Bush selected someone from Pennsylvania because the "home state Senators" who will introduce the nominee would be Specter and Santorum.

That could be Samuel Alito, who is a pretty good judge.

[Preachin']

It's Dan Rather, who is well known for using good judgment.