Posted on 07/11/2005 5:04:03 AM PDT by Molly Pitcher
WASHINGTON -- The pre-nomination battle over who President Bush should name to the Supreme Court contains enough irony and internal political warfare to fill a Tolstoy novel.
Initially, the story leading up to Bush's first nomination to that court was expected to be an all-out war by liberal Democrats who know that the next Republican appointment is going to push the nine-judge panel in a decidedly conservative direction. Indeed, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer was overheard on an Amtrak Metroliner last week saying that he and his liberal allies were preparing "to go to war" to block whomever Bush chose.
Surprisingly, while Schumer and an army of angry activists were beating their war drums, other Democratic liberals were urging their party to hold their fire until they know who the nominee will be. More surprisingly, the Senate's No. 1 Democrat seemed to be all but endorsing Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales for the open seat.
Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, a leader of the Senate Democrats' liberal bloc, who has been fighting Bush's judicial nominees for the past 4-1/2 years, was all of a sudden urging his fellow liberals to cool it for now and tone down their rhetoric.
And Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said he thinks Gonzales "is qualified" to sit on the court. "He's attorney general of the United States and a former Texas judge." Reid, of course, voted against Gonzales to run the Justice Department, but apparently he now thinks the Supreme Court is different matter -- especially after millions of Hispanic voters supported Bush over Democrat John Kerry last year.
But there was even more division over on the Republican side, where the GOP's powerful social conservative armies were up in arms over the thought of Bush putting Gonzales -- his longtime friend, political ally and confidante -- on the highest court in the land.
Gonzales is essentially a very conservative guy. He and Bush are joined at the hip on their intense opposition to judges who like to legislate from the bench. He is as tough on national security issues as it is possible to be, and proved that in his post-9/11 memorandums on how to deal with the terrorist threat.
On social issues, especially right-to-life issues, no president has been tougher or more effective in advancing the pro-life agenda, from the partial-birth abortion ban to his opposition to cloned stem-cell research. Alberto Gonzales personally opposes abortion.
But social conservatives fear that Gonzales is a little soft on right-to-life issues, though they can't point to any written judicial decisions to suggest that he would overturn Roe v. Wade, a ruling that his predecessor, John Ashcroft -- a hero in the social conservative movement -- said was "settled law."
However, they do point to a 2000 abortion case opinion that he wrote when he was on the Texas high court, a decision that overturned a lower court ruling in which a teenage girl sought a waiver from the state's parental-notification law.
Ironically, Gonzales based his opinion in the case on his belief that he could not rewrite the law to suit his own views. In his opinion, he said "to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism."
"I cannot rewrite the statute to make parental rights absolute, or virtually absolute, particularly when, as here, the Legislature has elected not to do so," he said.
Most bothersome for social conservatives was Gonzales' answer to a question posed at a conservative forum last year where he was asked if existing legal precedent would prevail in reconsidering the 1973 landmark case that established abortion rights. He said "yes."
Right now, Gonzales is on Bush's short list, no doubt about it. If he is chosen, he would be the first Hispanic jurist to the court, a move that could help the Republicans make even deeper inroads among Hispanic voters. Bush won a little more than 40 percent of their vote last year. Karl Rove thinks the GOP can push that number even higher by reaching out to this huge and growing voting bloc, which is overwhelmingly pro-life, by the way.
But has the intense opposition from social conservatives killed any and all chances that Bush will still nominate this once dirt-poor son of Mexican immigrants? Ironically, their opposition may have strengthened Gonzales' position all the more. Bush sent that signal last week: "All of a sudden this fellow, who is a good person, is under fire. I don't like it at all."
His robust defense of Gonzales has put many top social conservatives in a very tough position where some may sit this one out. "I can't support him because of my constituency, and I can't oppose him because I can't hurt this presidency," social conservative leader Paul Weyrich said last week. Stay tuned.
Heh. Like the Florida Supreme Court in the 2000 election. My point being that no court rewrites law.
The Texas decision discussed here was close. In my opinion, the majority, including Gonzales, incorrectly construed and applied Texas statutory law.
Uh, Mr. Bush - how about saving some of that tough guy attitude for the Senators who are resisting your agenda, rather than getting tough with the people who elected you? That might actually advance your agenda. What a concept.
Can some lawyer explain to me why precedent SHOULD override the text of the constitution?
Why is it wrong to say a previous court was wrong???? I just don't get it.
I'd prefer the President nominate someone other than a lawyer.
A nominee for the Supreme Court needs only to be able to READ the text of the constitution.
I agree.
It would be nice to have a businessman, a physicist, a doctor, etc., etc., on the court.
Here's a current judge that would drive the RATS into apoplectic fits if nominated to the SCOTUS. Why ole Teddy would blow a gasket and need his bottle of Cutty Sark fed to him by I.V. - and his name has come up.
And not that it's important or anything (sarcasm), but this judge's legal credentials are AAA+ and there's no doubt as to which side of the fence he sits, and it ain't the middle or left.
Well, this makes me feel a little better about Gonzalez.
Don't feel better about Gonzalez. His acceptance of Roe v Wade is proof that he doesn't accept the Constitution.
Amen!! Not just here but on every issue. The Asses are this country's enemy and should be viewed as such. They have proved it numerous times.
Not a single mention at all of Gonzales's most telling slip - his pro-affirmative action intervention in the administration's brief on Grutter v. Bollinger.
We've heard all this gibberish before. Lambro is trying to get us to change our mind about Gonzalez. If he's the guy, twenty years from now we'll still be playing this shell game, while Gonzalez becomes the newest Stevens, Souter, Warren, Kennedy, Brennan, O'Connor clone.
Notice Democrats get their choices to vote their way in the "House of Lords." Ours are usually closet Democrats. Can this be by accident?
"Glad to hear you're so patient..."
It's not like I'm not getting ribbed for that already.
What a bunch of forgiving friends I have.
: )
"My guess is that Ginsburg will resign immediately after the 2008 election. She'll hold out until 2008 in hopes that a commie will win the presidency, but will probably not wait until 2012, since she'll be 79 or so at that time.
"I know other justices on the bench are over 80 at present, but it is my understanding that she is not in the best health."
This summer a nice lady in her 80's died. Her very liberal grand daughters returned for her funeral. One will be marrying an intern with Ginsburg later this year. She went into a huge liberal temper tantrum when someone asked her and her future husband about Ginsburg's health.
A conservative cousin just smiled and said, "Thanks for the confirmation!"
"She went into a huge liberal temper tantrum when someone asked her and her future husband about Ginsburg's health."
But... isn't temper tantrums what liberals do?
How can we really know something is up?
I hope we get to replace her. That'd be awesome.
Luttig has to be the #1 choice. These days, trust matters most when it comes to SCOTUS nominees. Conservatives can trust Luttig as they trust Scalia and Thomas. He's absolutely qualified, and ought to be the choice to replace Sandy baby.
Her conservative cousin who has known her all of her life, said that the tantrum was like others when she was caught defending a liberal lie or hiding a liberal.
I think you are correct, Clinton never received 50% of the vote in either election if my memory serves me correctly.
For people like you just mentioned to come as close as they did shows why the Democrats need to keep people uneducated and not able to think for themselves and it says things about our country that shows how weak America is becoming.
How is nominating a pre-Roe Hispanic growing to help grow a voting bloc of Hispanics that are overwhelmingly pro-life?
See when you get old & lose your testosterone. (Does Paul know how hard that we conservatives have sucked it up to get to this point & now we want a compromise with Gonzales. NO WAY! Do it Bush & I am gone from the GOP forever.Guaranteed.
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.