Posted on 09/05/2005 4:39:35 AM PDT by TomGuy
Newsreaders on FoxNews just said a 'Senior administration spokesman' has said Bush plans to nominate Roberts for Chief Justice position.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So, the choice is to beat ourselves up over trusting Bush or not, and there's nothing anyone can or will do at this point to make it change? Beating our heads on a wall would have as much impact.
The choice is made and it seems to me we need to wait and see what happens before casting blame or dispersions towards Bush.
It is not unusual that a Chief Justice does not come from the sitting Court.
Are you asserting that Coulter and M. Reagan were...getting faxes from the WH?
"Two fights instead of three. A practical move."
I agree. Now let's sit back and see who he nominates to replace O'Connor. That will tell the tale.
This is such a gamble. :/ IF Brown is truly as conservative as Rehnquist, then this will have been an excellent move.
If he turns out to be a Souter (Remember the dems screamed to the rafters when he was nominated.) then we are all going to be extremely disappointed.
Well, ping me when Shumer calls this an "Extraordinary Circumstance ..."
Will all of you doom and gloomers stop it! Senator Inhofe assured all of us that met him at the airport when he gave us the facts behind Judge Roberts that none of us would be disappointed and he is a strict contitutionalist. Shame some of you believe what the media has to say instead of wondering why two conservative commentators said what they did. We got the story from Sen Inhofe and it is going to make the doom and gloomers on here look rather foolish!
"By your logic Rehnquist should never have been Chief Justice."
What on earth are you talking about? Rehnquist had a solid track record as an associate justice when Reagan elevated him. What, precisely, are you talking about?
I'll bet an Edith from New Orleans - question is, which one ...
bttt
No, because there is only one Scalia, one Rehnquist and one Thomas. God is funny that way in prefering originals in his creation.
But I assume you mean ideologically? even there you are off center. None of those Justices see or saw eye to eye in every instance. Further, even the leader of the "opposition", Coulter, states she doesn't know so I find it interesting you are willing to go out on a further limb then even she has climbed in your certainty.
"So, the choice is to beat ourselves up over trusting Bush or not, and there's nothing anyone can or will do at this point to make it change? Beating our heads on a wall would have as much impact.
The choice is made and it seems to me we need to wait and see what happens before casting blame or dispersions towards Bush."
I have never mistaken what goes on here at FR for something that has real impact. Obviously this is a forum for people to debate. No news there.
And obviously we have no choice but to wait and see. Again, no news there.
The only point that I and others are making is a fairly modest one. The CJ is an important post. Roberts did pro bono work for radical homosexuals/judicial activists and assisted one of the worst cases in recent memory. GWB's domestic track record is not exactly conservative.
We fear that all of the foregoing create a perfect storm and that someone to the left of Rehnquist is put into the CJ post. We fear that GWBs promise to put Scalia and Thomas types on the court may not be fulfilled. There is plenty of reason to fear that scenario. And it is a loss for liberty if that scenario plays out.
You mean like Ann Coulter? What? She's part of the MSM now?
I'd rather believe people that have actually looked at his record as opposed to the imaginations of people on here.
While I have all the faith in the world in President Bush, the fact remains that he has to get a nominee through the RINO-controlled Senate. I have no faith in them. Please, oh, please, tell me why I should believe that someone acceptable to the likes of Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chaffee, mike dewhine, George Voinovich, or Chuch Hagel is a strict constructionist.
I have been waiting a very long time for someone to answer that question.
Perhaps you have some sort of clairvoyant wisdom that eludes the entire pundocracy and blogocracy of the Right.
Dude, your last paragraph hit the nail on the head.
"The choice is made and it seems to me we need to wait and see what happens before casting blame..."
You will be waiting a lifetime.
According to my Senator there may be some water being carried. He told a group of us that he met at the airport during his stops around OK. Said we are going to really like this strict constructionist nominee. Also said everything was working to make sure Judge Roberts was confirmed.
"Senator Inhofe assured all of us that met him at the airport when he gave us the facts behind Judge Roberts that none of us would be disappointed and he is a strict contitutionalist"
This is one of the most encouraging things I have seen here or anywhere else. And it is concrete not speculative. (You should have needled Jim about the gay thing, though...would have been good to hear his reaction....).
The Senate as it is presently constituted will not confirm a judge who is committed to restoring the Constitution, you are 100% correct about that.
I didn't see Revel answer this, but Rehnquist was on the Supreme Court for about 15 years before becoming Chief Justice.
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.