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".

[jveritas]

To which post in particular. Can you summarize for me why Clement is not good?

[No Surrender No Retreat]

Nice guy(s) always wind up having their asses served up on a democratic platter. NSNR

[mrs9x]

That's the thing, in her confirmation hearing for Circuit Court judge, she has to say that Roe is settled. It technically is. But that does not mean that she would not overrule Roe if given the opportunity.

[Iwo Jima]

I trust this president on many, many things. If he says that he had evidence of WMDs (just using an example), I believe him. I don't have to see the evidence.

But judicial appointments are different. There can be no trusting that he knows the judicial philosophy of a stealth candidate. How can he possibly know this? Because the candidate told him so? People say lots of things but without deeds to back up their words, who can know? Because a trusted person told him that the candidate was just like Scalia? Someone just like Scalia would have been acting in documented ways just like Scalia.

This is how we got Soutered by Bush I. We will not accept such behavior a second time.

If Bush appoints a stealth candidate, it will tear the Republican Party apart EVEN IF HE TURNS OUT TO BE RIGHT. It will take years for the proof of a new Supreme Court judge's philosophy to be apparent. But the effects of a demoralized base will show up immediately and could give us President Hillary.

[mrs9x]

We will know soon whether Clement is pro-life...there is a partial-birth abortion case before the Court this coming term.

[No Surrender No Retreat]

Hey Andrew they are in Washington D.C. I believe there is something in the water there, which affects all the republicans will to fight.

I hope you are right Andrew. NSNR

[Paradox]

I'd take Clement over O'conner. So this would be a net positive. Can't have all I want as fast as I want it, but incrementalism has worked for liberals for a century, we've been peeling it back the past couple of decades. I'll take it and will remain optimistic. Sure I might have other preferences, but I wont get upset if its Clement over Jones.

[maryz]

I think I sense in her tone and wording a hint that she does not agree with the Supreme Court on this.

I agree, sort of "He who agrees against his will/Is of the same opinion still" tone (though to say it would have sunk her like a rock in those hearings).

[jveritas]

That is an intelligent assessment and analysis.

[conservativebabe]

I agree with that assessment. It is law right now, so she isn't saying anything wrong there. It is entirely possible that she would overturn it if given the opportunity.

[conservativebabe]

Nail on the head.

[jveritas]

It won't tear the GOP apart specially when the GOP leadesrship and 90% of Republicans are O.K. with it. All what we will hear are the savage attacks from the left, as well as savage attacks from the Buchananites and third party voters who claim they are a considerable force in the conservative movement when in reality they are a very tiny bunch of delusional idiots.

[Hurricane Andrew]

Hey Andrew they are in Washington D.C. I believe there is something in the water there, which affects all the republicans will to fight.

Can't argue with that ;)

[Miss Marple]

Well, I can understand your nervousness. However, W's father himself has said Souter was a mistake. I imagine the President is well aware of the dangers of a stealth candidate.

Another thing you need to consider; some of the candidates that you might prefer might not be willing to go through the meat-grinder of the confirmation process. Additionally, there may be some candidates who have personal issues which are minor but would immediately cause the democrats to trash them. I am not certain that I could withstand that process, myself.

I really wish people would not immediately go to the flash point over this. It isn't helpful to anyone.

[Iwo Jima]

Look at it this way. The Supreme Court's job is to enforce the Constitution. Justices should be VERY ACTIVE in doing their job They should strike down unconstitutional laws with a purple passion. Aggressively, enthusiastically.

If someone does not believe in this philosophy, they are not competent to hold they office.

They should not be substituting their judgment for what the constitution says. The complaint against such improper behavior is not that they are "active," but that they under acting unconstitutionally.

Respect for orderly process and settled legal doctrine does cause reasonable constitutionalists to shie away from incessant reversals of what is/is not constitutional. But if a decision is constitutionally wrong, it has to be corrected. Orderliness cannot trump the constitution.

My test for Supreme Court nominees would be "Would you vote to overturn Wickard v. Filburn?"

[johnb838]

I say it will be Pinellas County Florida Probate Judge George W. Greer.

Only if Greer called and told him that's who it needed to be. Greer is actually running the government.

[JohnnyZ]

If Bush appoints a stealth candidate, it will tear the Republican Party apart EVEN IF HE TURNS OUT TO BE RIGHT. It will take years for the proof of a new Supreme Court judge's philosophy to be apparent. But the effects of a demoralized base will show up immediately

Precisely.

And when there are many good candidates with clear conservative/originalist track records, choosing a stealth candidate with a big "trust me" is perverse.

[Paradox]

If Bush appoints a stealth candidate, it will tear the Republican Party apart EVEN IF HE TURNS OUT TO BE RIGHT.

I simply disagree with this asessment. Look, most of us here on FR are political WHACKJOBS, got that? We live, breathe, and sweat this stuff. The vast majority of Republicans, I'll bet, would be happy with anyone who is "conservative". That would include a long list of potential jurists who probably wouldn't make it past the "Gold Standard" of FreeRepublic.

If the nominee has decent Conservative credentials (like, say, a membership to the Federalist Society), she'll be accepted by the large, if not vast majority of Republicans.

[Rutles4Ever]

Boy that really will solve a lot of problems, wouldn't it?

Yes, it would.

[ohioWfan]

Why would the administration want the Rove stuff out of the headlines?

The harder and longer the left tries to hang him, the sweeter it's going to be when he's completely exhonerated.