Skip to comments.Conservative Groups Rally Against Gonzales as Justice
Posted on 07/02/2005 11:37:18 AM PDT by wagglebee
WASHINGTON, July 2 - Conservative groups confronted President Bush with a groundswell of opposition this weekend against nominating his attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, warning in private meetings and public statements that doing so would splinter conservative support.
At least one prominent Latino evangelical group urged Mr. Bush to name another Hispanic candidate, Emilio M. Garza, a federal appeals judge from Texas.
Within hours after Justice O'Connor's announced her retirement, members of conservative groups around the country convened in different combinations in five national conference calls in which many participants said they shared their concerns about Mr. Gonzales, whose opposition to abortion they regard as suspect. Late this week, a delegation of conservative lawyers led by C. Boyden Gray and former Attorney General Edwin Meese III - and including Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the evangelical American Center for Law and Justice, and Leonard Leo, a top official of the Federalist Society and director of Republican outreach to Catholics - met with the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card, Jr., to voice similar views, according to allies who were briefed afterward.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I'm hopeful that Bush won't nominate Gonzalez. Can you imagine what his hearing would be like, with all kinds of questions about Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, enemy combatants, etc.. It would be a circus. Hopefully, Bush is aware of that.
"Can you imagine what his hearing would be like, with all kinds of questions about Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, enemy combatants, etc.. It would be a circus."
I'm not sure. I think the Dems would be VERY HAPPY to see Gonzales nominated. Go over to DUmmyland or DailyKos. They see him as the next Souter.. and they may be right.
Much ado about nothing. This isn't going to happen.
He also showed himself to be unfriendly to property rights as an Associate Justice on the TX Supreme Ct.
A respected conservative legal scholar, McConnell, a judge on the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, enjoys bipartisan support in the academic community. He opposed President Clinton's impeachment and the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore that made George W. Bush the president.
Liberal interest groups are wary of McConnell because he is personally opposed to abortion. He has criticized the legal reasoning in Roe v. Wade and as a law professor, used Life magazine photos of fetuses to spark student discussion of whether abortion amounts to a taking of human life.
During his 2002 Senate confirmation hearing for the federal appeals court, however, McConnell insisted he would follow precedent in upholding Roe.
"The abortion question is completely settled," he told senators. "The only avenue for change is through constitutional amendment. ... It is not going to happen." At another point, he stated: "It is settled law. I am committed to enforcing and obeying that."
After McConnell was questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said that while he disagreed with many of McConnell's positions, the nominee "showed himself to be more of an iconoclast than an ideologue" in his candid discussion of his views.
His writings advocate ending the rigid separation of church and state that prevailed in the 1970s, and he thus supports school vouchers. That shift to a more "neutral" state approach to religion is central to the Bush administration's goal to funnel more government money to religious social service programs.
The self-described theologically conservative Christian, however, opposed government-sponsored prayer in schools.
McConnell is not without critics from the political right. Lawyer Andy Schlafly, the son of longtime conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, recently wrote that McConnell is "every bit as hostile to conservative legal principles as (David) Souter turned out to be." Souter was named to the Supreme Court by the first President Bush and has disappointed conservatives by repeatedly siding with its more liberal members. Schlafly cited McConnell's refusal to say Roe v. Wade should be overturned, as well as a legal philosophy that "hostile to government expressions of faith." ---
I think that if the 'Rats cause too much trouble, Bush should privately threaten to do a recess appointment of Ken Starr or Robert Bork.
"Conservative groups confronted President Bush with a groundswell of opposition this weekend against nominating his attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.."
Well, how about the former attorney general, John Ashcroft? That would work for me.
I have a unique idea. Why not submit the name of the person who will best uphold our Constitution? This would be easy. There would be no consideration to gender or cultural background. Now isnt that easy?
Who did you have in mind?
Not really, when the GOP is hell-bent (for lack of a better word) on securing the "hispanic vote".
La Raza, more appropriately identified as the National Council of the Race, is a racist organization.
Gonzales isn't a serious consideration I hope.
Settled? (As in "final solution"?)
Remember the following article?
Ted Olson Criticizes GOP Leaders For 'Heated Rhetoric' About Judges
Drudge ^ | 4/21/05 | Drudge
Posted on 04/21/2005 11:34:44 AM CDT by joesbucks ,p>Ted Olson Criticizes GOP Leaders For 'Heated Rhetoric' About Judges Thu Apr 21 2005 09:57:54 ET
Former solicitor general Theodore Olson writes in the WALL STREET JOURNAL on Thursday: "A prominent member of the Senate leadership recently described a Supreme Court justice as 'a disgrace.' An equally prominent member of the leadership of the House of Representatives on the other side of the political aisle has characterized another justice's approach to adjudication as 'incredibly outrageous.'
These excoriations follow other examples of personalized attacks on members of the judiciary by senior political figures. So it is time to take a deep breath, step back, and inject a little perspective into the recent heated rhetoric about judges and the courts. We might start by getting a firm grip on the reality that our independent judiciary is the most respected branch of our government, and the envy of the world. ... We expect dignity, wisdom, decency, civility, integrity and restraint from our judges. It is time to exercise those same characteristics in our dealings with, and commentary on, those same judges -- from their appointment and confirmation, to their decision-making once they take office."
Much ado about nothing. This isn't going to happen.
Realistically you are correct. I admit I was being sarcastic.
Thank you for your reply.
I agree.. I just want someone who follows the constitution, not their own personal political beliefs. That is why I like Justice Janice Rogers Brown.
Agreed. Republicans better get the Judges right or they may lose support in 2008!
The way things are going with the judiciary, if we don't get better judges there may not even be elections in 2008.
Gonzales did not make the short list, is that correct?
That's the rumor going around, but this early in the game that doesn't mean a whole lot.
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if President Bush once again thumbed his nose at his most ardent supporters.
I admit I have only read that which has been posted here on FR. Thus far, I am impressed with Justice Janice Rogers Brown because of her smarts and not because of her gender or shade of skin. I am sure there are others who are equally as smart and even smarter, but they have not had the high public profile that Justice Brown has had up until now.
If President Bush doesn't get these judges right, this nation is finished.
Janice Rogers Brown is Number 1 on my list!
Following the Constitution if very important to me also.
Of course, what you say is true, but that does not mean that they wont try to savage him and Bush at the hearing.
Hey, I just had an idea why not name Judge Lance Ito to the Supreme Court? He would be a source of entertainment.
Bulls_ _ _! That is exactly the wrong way to go about making appointments. Olson is too old, period. What the dems will do should be irrelevant to the nomination.
She is No. 1 on my list too.
Not only is Olsen too old, he's not pro-life!
The President can only go so far as to nominate. The Senate approves. Therefore, if this nation will be finished because of the wrong Justices as you state, it's the Senate who will do the finishing.
That's true, if president Bush gets the nominations right.
Thus far, his nominations have been fine.
Ted Olson and Robert Bork are both too old.
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.