Skip to comments.Strong Anti-Roe Nominees Off Table??? (I hope it's not True)
Posted on 09/17/2005 9:43:37 AM PDT by HapaxLegamenon
Roe's Influence on the Choice of the Nominee Candidates > Jones | 06:14 PM | Tom Goldstein | Comments
Second, and directly relevant to the President's ongoing process of selecting a nominee to replace Justice O'Connor, the article attributes to "[s]ources close to the White House" the fact that Edith Jones "is no longer under serious consideration." The reason "in part" is "concerns that her strongly voiced views against abortion would alienate Collins, Snowe, and other Republican moderates."
(Excerpt) Read more at sctnomination.com ...
You and me both. Doesn't nixing all pro-life judges create a de facto "litmus test"?
You may hope it's not true, but if even moderate Republicans won't vote for her, there's no sense nominating her.
We need a more stealth candidate who we think will vote against it, but whose public utterances can't be used against her. Or him.
Let's hope that doesn't happen.
Roberts replacing Rehnquist + moderate replacing O'Conner = Wash
If this is the case, then it is time to purge the pro-aborts from the Republican Party. It would be better if these seats were Dem. The realignment of the parties' political axis and regional strengths must continue. These quislings undermine the mission of the party (which for some of us is not merely to win elections to get jobs for our buddies).
But We CONTROL the Senate. That should be the end of the questioned.
I agree. But with Spector, Snowe, Collins etc, do we really have a majority?
Has Bush Disappointed us yet as far a Court nominations! NO! Things are going to be just fine!
This is wishful thinking by the pro-death crowd.
Justice Ann Coulter.
POTUS will nominate a strict constructionist/Constitutionalist without a long paper trail.
Demcorats already know that 'strict constructionist and Constitutionalist' are code words for "conservative."
We control the Senate, but if we can't get the votes, even among our moderate Republicans, there's no way the nominee will be accepted. It's unfortunate, but there it is.
And for those freepers who say they will never vote for a Republican again (for various reasons), this is a case in point why it's so important to not only maintain our majority, but increase it.
I too hope it is not true.
I would love a front seat for those hearings!
Unfortunately we do not control the Senate. The Democrats + Democrats-in-GOP-clothing (Specter, Snowe, Chafee, et al) form a solid majority in that chamber.
No, but Souter wasn't a disappointment either until he was already on the Court.
I like Roberts, its seems he is going to be great, and while I like Bush, this "lets not p-off Spector, Snowe, etc", seems too close to his "new tone" style which never wins us anything.
There, I have vented, hopefully it will turn out well.
Any names or sources on potential nominees?
Note that this article is dated June, so things could be different now.
POTUS will thread the needle and make 99% of us happy. He is NOT going to make a Souter mistake like his father. GW is not a POTUS that can be pushed around, coerced or intimidated.
Most everyone is thinking he will HAVE to nominate a woman, and for sure a minority. Janice Rogers Brown comes to mind...lol.
Amazing how the Majority of 55 lets the Minority of 44 run all over them.
Who cares what Schumer and Teddy think about any nominee??
Of course it's true. The Bush administration is in the process of losing its conservative base. The Republican party had better look out.
He should go outside judicial circles this time and pick a surprise like a Ted Olsen or Orrin Hatch.
Is Kay Bailey Hutchison pro-life? She'd be a great choice...
The point made elsewhere on this thread is correct. It is not a minority of 44. On abortion issues it is the 44 rats plus 5-7 RINO's. So the bad guys still have a majority in the Senate on most cultural issues.
One thing is certain: You won't get any nominees that are ADVERTISED as strong anti-Roe nominees.
And you shouldn't get any nominees who are advertised as strong pro-Roe nominees, either. Any justice who has already "made up his mind" is not qualified to serve.
Not "purely" pro-life but fairly strong, it looks like.
Peach, there are two issues right now that are important to me as a conservative:
1) President Bush fulfilling his PROMISE to appoint a strict constructionist
2) The administration closing the borders for national security
If we don't know for certain the nominee is a strict conservative, then we can't know whether President Bush has kept his promise. A stealth nominee = a broken promise until proven otherwise. It doesn't swing the other way.
You "moderates" either don't understand, or don't care, about these two vital issues.
I am far from alone is deciding that if these two issues are not being serviced, then it gives me less than sufficient reason to vote Republican next time. I and many others are willing to accept the consequences of voting conscience rather than party, regardless of how many names you call me, or how much you malign my character or political intelligence.
No, No, No, No! She is Pro-Abort!
This "no litmus test" thing is a joke. Truth be told, when judges get to decide this sorts of issues then there WILL BE a litmus test. There's no way around it. That's one reason it's so wrong to allow them to rule over us in this way.
We're going to now be asked to have to stealth maybes to replace a seat held by an originalist? The result is the court moving to the left and a broken campaign promise by the Bush.
The Republican party must be held accountable at the ballot box if it refuses to appoint orignalist judges to the court.
I agree. Rove should know better. The short list should by Brown, Jones, Luttig, & Garza.
Why post this article now?
Its dated July 14th when I went to the link.
Its been a political eternity since then.
President Bush has made his choices clear that he will not abandon his base, with appointing Roberts. Since Roberts was originally selected to replace O'Connor, as when this article was written. This is way off, and has no current relevance.
Everyone is ignoring the date. The "moderate" pick has already been awarded to Roberts. So the next one should be even more conservative.
This article is old. Its been a political eternity since then.
OMG. You sound hysterical.
#1. I'm not a moderate.
#2. Please show me where I maligned your character.
#3. Please show me where I called you names.
The date was July and I believe that the source was some law firm's newly created SCOTUS nominee website. Sheer speculation signifying nothing but the law firm's probable view that it is bored with all that haggling over a mere 45 million little corpses and wished that attention be paid to nuances of anti-trust law, commerce clause stuff and the other REALLY important issues.
Show me where I said you had already done either.
You might notice that saying I sound hysterical is pretty close to the line of mailigning character, Peach.
If I had the time to go back to the Shaivo threads, I strongly suspect I could find an instance or two where you did both to me.
But on this thread, in my post #30, I was anticipating the reactions of "moderates" to #30. You have to read the whole post - when I referred to "you" caling names, it was a reference to "moderates", not just you personally.
But, you post as though you are a moderate. If not that, then what?
Yep, but watch out for the RepuliBots. RINOs are damaging to the party. Seats give us committee leadership and majorities but I am not convinced we could not win without them... Four more senate seats would do it and maybe little bitty offices in the broom closet of the Senate Office building for Snowe and Collins would do it..(Right between the men's room and the Hagel and McCain offices.) I can see one seat in Lousianna that should be up for grabs in about 5 years but I bet we can gain two elsewhere in the next go round in '06.
Not Hatch. For Gosh sakes we need someone with a brain! Hatch: I don't agree with Ginsberg but I voted for her because Pres. Clinton nominated her...Ditto Trent Lott. Some leadership! They are part of the Bob Dole "go along to get along crowd"
Man, you really can't answer a straight question can you?
I posted that if moderates within the Republican party will not vote for someone for SCOTUS, then there isn't much point in nominating them.
For that post, you claim that I maligned your character and called you names.
Neither of which you can prove so you're going back to April and the Schiavo matter? Why don't you pull up ANY post, even going back that far, where I've ever maligned your character or called you names.
And, btw, why don't you also show me where I post as a moderate? It will be a loooong wait, because you can't do it.
I'll check in later and see what else you can dream up while I'm out this evening. It should be interesting.
you don't think Ginsburg or Breyer, or for that matter Scalua or Thomas had "made up their mind". Thomas said he'd never thought about the issue and had no opinion on it. do you believe that?
My guess with Roberts is he will be somewhere between Renquist and O'Conner in judicial philosophy. I think you may see a modest additional slight tilt to the right even if an ideologue is selected to replace O'Conner. Those who are seeking a conservative activist court or see a Roberts be another Scalia IMHO are in for a large disappointment.
I also don't see the point in nominating someone who has said they would overturn Roe or has strongly implied it. That decision was a horrible example of judicial activism that has politicized and wrecked the Court, but we just don't have the numbers to get a avowed anti-Roe nominee confirmed. Here's why:
1) Any anti-Roe nominee faces a filibuster.
2) There are not 60 votes to invoke cloture on an anti-Roe nominee debate.
3) There are not 50 Senators willing to go "nucular" on an anti-Roe nominee in order to get around the filibuster without 60 votes to invoke cloture.
Unless at least one of the statements above is not true, then nominating an avowed anti-Roe nominee is doomed to end in failure. The President will not set himself up for failure.
In #44, you don't seem to be talking about your post #38, which is what I was replying to. I'm not going to go back and read every post of yours to try to figure out what the heck you're talking about.
When you criticize conservatives, and talk down to us, that sounds to me like you're not a conservative. If not a conservative, and not a moderate, what's left? Libertarian? I doubt that pretty securely.
For the record, in #41, I answered the questions you raised in #38, as well as asking you a question that you didn't answer. Normally, I'd suspect someone who accuses me of doing exactly what they ARE doing of being a liberal. Is that what you meant when you implied you're not a moderate?
I think Ginsburg and Breyer have made up their minds. I doubt that Scalia and Thomas have. They have the offsetting issue of stare decisis to deal with.
have you read theie Casey and Stenberg opinions, they already have made up their minds. unless, of course, you think that they wrote those opinions knowing that they were in the minoroty so it didn't matter and that if Roe really was in danger, they'd bail and uphold it, which is a possibility, i guess. is that what you meant by that?