CNN-Senate Judiciary Members Suggest Imminent SCOTUS Retirement Coming..Possibly today

The Hotline / National Journal and CNN ^ | June 26, 2003 | Ted Barrett

[ewing]

Speculation here in Washington is at a fever pitch at this point about whether there will be an announcement today.

If one believes the relationship between the Senate Majority Leader and the White House is as close as been rumoured, then the release by Sen. Frist of his guidelines for handing a SCOTUS nomination may actually signal something in the next 48 hours.

CNN's 'Morning Grind' reports that Senate Judiciary Members whispering about increased chatter suggesting an 'imminent retirement' possibly as soon as today; the reports are described as 'specific' and 'credible.'

They sound like intelligence officers debating whether the threat level should be raised to Orange.

Asked if he's heard about a retirement, Chief Justice Rehnquist said with a smile, 'No, I havent heard anyhing.'

[sinkspur]

I think instead he is talking to Daschle as President Bushs liason about who is really going to be nominated.

Why would Gonzales or Bush talk to Daschle about who they're about to nominate, when the nominee (unless it's Gonzales) has likely not been notified?

Gonzales is likely talking to Daschle about something else.

[nfldgirl]

"Gonzales will be the nominee."

He better not! Bush better call Dole, his father, and Ford and find out what happens to Republicans who sodomize their conservative base.

I don't mind if he nominates Gonzales...if the man's a true conservative of the Clarence Thomas variety, then so what's the big deal....even if he nominates a woman, a black, an oriental...what's the difference so long as the nominee can be counted on to follow the constitution.

It's just that he's darned if he does/he's darned if he doesn't! If he does nominate a "minority" then he's accused of kow-towing just to get votes. If he doesn't, then he's accused of being some white-supremist, racist, anti-minority, anti-woman, bigoted, etc.

BUT if he can nominate a truly qualified, conservative, strict constructionist judge, who also happens to be a woman, hispanic, asian, black, indian or whatever, then all the more power to him!

[SUSSA]

The Texas trial lawyers gave Bush high marks for putting Gonzales on the Texas Supreme Court and moving it "back to the center from the far right".

[sinkspur]

The Texas trial lawyers gave Bush high marks for putting Gonzales on the Texas Supreme Court and moving it "back to the center from the far right".

That tells me that Gonzales does not allow ideology to prevail over interpretation of the law.

Which, by my measure, is conservative.

[SUSSA]

LOL I knew you would side with moving the court to the left. Good work.

[larlaw]

Gonzalez was considered a "moderate conservative", not a true conservative, while serving on the Texas Supreme Court (voted to strike down abortion parental consent law)Also, according to numerous inside sources, he was the prime Bush White House advocate of NOT pushing the SCOTUS in their briefs and arguments to eliminate the use of race in college admissions; It was his pressure that led the muddled brief (advocating striking down U.M's admissions plan but stopping well short of striking down all affirmative action, much less a.a. in higher education) which eventually helped O'Conner to side with the libs. So although a hispanic conservative would be great politically, Gonzalez is NOT a conservative in my book. I'd much prefer Emilio Garza. (Or even better as far as a minority candidate goes is Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court)

Just hope that it is O'Conner and not Rehnquist who is retiring!!!

[cinFLA]

Might as well elect Dean instead.

Spoken like the Bush-bashing libertarian ....

[sinkspur]

LOL I knew you would side with moving the court to the left. Good work.

And I knew you would favor ideology over strict interpretation of the Constitution.

[1stFreedom]

I'm not a libertarian.

[sinkspur]

And our good pro-life Gonzalez who voted to give the girl an abortion without parental consent said of Owen that adopting her view would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism.

Gonzales' ruling was consistent with THE LAW, which dealt with parental consent.

Like SUSSA, you want judges who will rule on the basis of ideology, and not the law.

I'm still waiting for your proof that Gonzales is pro-choice. You haven't provided it.

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

All,
Plz wade in on this thread as well, it has alot to do with what is being discussed here.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/936054/posts?page=5

[sinkspur]

Oh, so having a pro-choice voting record, and overturning a pro-life law and giving a minor an abortion in contravention of that law obviously means he's PRO-F%CKING-LIFE!

Gonzales was a Supreme Court justice. He didn't "vote"; he made judicial judgments. Overturning the parental consent law was nearly unanimous, and his judgment on the minor was about her maturity, which had to do with the way the law was worded, not with his opinion of abortion.

I'm waiting for something that Gonzales said politicially that would indicate whether he was pro-life or pro-choice. You still haven't provided that.

(Hint: You ain't gonna find it, because he's never expressed his opinion.)

[Im Your Huckleberry]

Bush better put up a hardcore conservative and strict constructivist judge.

And he better be prepared to go the mat with these DemocRAT m-f-rs over this. He better be prepared, and the Republican Senate better be prepared, to put the RATS up against the wall over this one.

There won't be an issue more important until the next election.

Bush better have his game face on for this one. And he better be prepared to get down and dirty with these RAT a-h-les.

[ewing]

Interesting thought, if Gonzales already wants to speak with Daschle its a good bet that Dubya does have someone up his sleeve like the conservative Black Lady judge from California..

[ewing]

I think the Dims will try and filibuster till October 2004 no matter who the nominee is..