Posted on 06/23/2005 11:47:36 AM PDT by GOPGuide
The blogosphere is abuzz with this report by Bill Kristol that Sandra O'Conner may be retiring, and that the White House is considering nominating Alberto Gonzales for her spot. (Kristol calls this "informed speculation" on his part) The theory is that since O'Conner isn't a conservative judge, that the GOP base won't be as upset with Gonzales, whose thought to be a judicial "moderate" nomination, as they would be if Gonzales was replacing the Chief Justice, who is a conservative justice.
To read why this is a very bad idea click READ MORE
If true, I think this would be a big mistake. For many of us, this issue was in the top 3 in why we supported the President. Trading one moderate/liberal justice for another is not what we had in mind. And who's to say Rehnquist, if he stays on, is going to retire in the next few years? And what happens if Rehnquist waits a year or to before retirement and the Democrats draw an "inside straight" and gain control of the Senate in 2006 (granted it's a long shot)? No, Bush needs to nominate a Scalia/Thomas type conservative to the court, no matter who retires.
Ramesh Ponnuru of NRO's The Corner also makes some great arguments against this "swap".
"1) No conservative should accept the argument that it's not so bad because Gonzales would be replacing O'Connor rather than one of the conservative justices. We do not face a choice between having Justice O'Connor on the Court for another thirty years or having Justice Gonzales on the Court for those years. Why should conservatives think it a good deal to give O'Connorism more time on the Court? Also, President Bush didn't pledge to nominate justices who were no worse than the people they would be replacing. He promised to nominate jurists in the Scalia-Thomas mold. If the argument is that only someone like Gonzales can get confirmed, then we can treat that argument on its (dubious) merits. But we should categorically reject the idea that there should be a lower bar for replacing O'Connor than for replacing Rehnquist.
2) Nor should conservatives accept any moderate-now-for-a-conservative-later deal. Gonzales's nomination would make the later confirmation of any conservative less likely. (For example: Any Democrat who votes to confirm Gonzales will use that vote to justify voting against a conservative later. The Gonzales vote will prove how reasonable they are.)
3) Assuming that Edward Whelan is right that Justice Gonzales would have to recuse himself from a large number of cases in the next few years, that fact seriously undermines the case for putting him on the Court.
4) I think Bush's political interests are better served by attempting to place a conservative on the Court. Assuming Gonzales has a relatively easy confirmation--which is by no means a sure thing--the president would be able to say he has accomplished a bipartisan victory. He would get some credit, mainly but not entirely from Hispanics, for nominating the first Hispanic justice. But he runs a serious risk of demoralizing conservative voters.
If he nominates a conservative, on the other hand, he buys himself a huge fight, or rather series of fights--on ground favorable to Republicans. Bush is not doing well on the economic-policy or foreign-policy front. A judge fight in which the Democrats would a) look unreasonable in refusing up-or-down votes when the public was watching and b) be unable to stop themselves from reinforcing their reputation as pro-abortion, anti-religion-in-public-life extremists could rescue him and his party from their current straits. And winning a fight (which I think Bush would win) would do more for him than a 65-35 confirmation would."
The thinking is that the President's best case scenario would be to nominate Gonzales now, and a conservative when Rehnquist retires, and at that time making Gonzalez the Chief Justice, as his legacy would include the "Gonzales Court", which the thinking goes would help the GOP gain Hispanic votes.
But here's a practical problem with that thinking. Did the appointment of Clarence Thomas do anything to help the GOP get votes? And let's be honest, how many Hispanics, when they go into the voting booth, are going to consider a Gonzales appointment one way or another. Don't you think that national security, economic and social issues (you know, the same things non-Hispanics think are important) would rate several steps higher in the food chain that a Supreme Court appointment based on race?
Sorry, I'm wouldn't like that. Supreme Court nominations are precious, and have effects that will be felt long after President Bush is done. We don't need another moderate/liberal Justice like Kennedy around for the next 30 years.
Conservatives need to make their voices heard and let it be known this is not acceptable.
A Gonzales appointment on the other hand would leave us with a Justice who will be even more liberal than Sandra Day and thus move the court even further left than it already is(Sandra just voted the right way on property rights).
Why do I suspect something bad is going to happen?...
Gonzales: Spanish for Souter.
That would be great! O'conner is a reliable vote for the liberals.
Gonzales is even more liberal than O'Connor.
I think I need to see his values record.
I don't know why it's so assumed that Gonzalez isn't a conservative... I assumed he was, but I don't know much about him.
Looks like more like Kristol trying to insert himself into something he knows nothing about, and stirring the pot.
Gonzales called Illegal ALiens "law abiding citizens", supports race quotas and will not vote to overturn Roe v Wade.
Bush doesn't want Gonzales to be in the SC if I remember correctly, which is why he made him AG instead. I think it has something to do with Gonzales's political ideas or something; all I know is that Gonzales won't even get the nom.
I think Bush thought Ashcroft would have been a good SC judge. Count more on that nomination than Gonzales's.
If O'Connor doesn't retire then there is a good chance Bush will replace Rehnquist with Gonzales which would be even worse than replacing O'Connor with Alberto Gonzales.
So here we are, after 2 elections worth of pleading based on the ultimate aim of putting conservative, constructionist judges on the Supreme Court, and we're about to get our first nominee... one who thinks that entire sections of the Constitution are completely optional.
Is there any serious thought to a Senator Hatch nomination for SC?
Gonzales also called Illegal ALiens "law abiding citizens".
Hatch is a moron who is moving left everyday. He's also too old.
Who do we write to to get this guy off the list? We need Roe v Wade overturned and Gonzales is the wrong guy for the job.
Not to mention he supports placing restrictions on firearms ownership for law-abiding citizens (Not the illegal kind of "citizen" either).
I thought Gonzalez was a conservative.
We don't want Gonzalez on the Supreme Court! Personally, though, I can't help but think that he would be rejected by the Senate. Even still, let's keep the drums of opposition to his potential nomination beating loud and clear.
It would be odd to have a sort of Bork reversal - rejecting a nominee for not being conservative enough!
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.