Possible Court Nominees Pose a Quandary for Bush (Alberto Gonzales May Replace REHNQUIST!!!)

Washinton Post ^ | 06/19/05 | Washington Post

[dangus]

DAMN STRAIGHT!

If the GOP goes liberal, and Hillary wins, we get a chance to take the white house back in 4 years.

If the GOP is so liberal as to allow Gonzalez on the USSC, conservatives will never again be elected to anything, and 10 years hence, the GOP will look like Ted Kennedy's party, and the Demonrats will be openly totalitarian.

[Malesherbes]

Question: What's the Spanish word for Souter?

Answer: Gonzales.

[Tarkin]

Gonzales would be a bad choice.
Of course I don't believe that there really is any chance of reversing Roe in the next 20-30 years. I really don't believe that Dubya is going to nominate three conservative judges to the SCOTUS even if he has 3 vacancies - Rehnquist, O'Connor and Stevens, he will probably be forced to nominate at least one moderate (someone like Anthony Kennedy). I mean come on - in the last 35 years Republican presidents nominated 10 judges to the SCOTUS - only seven of them turned out to be truly conservative (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas). Four turned out to be moderate or moderately liberal (Burger, Powell, O'Connor and Kennedy) and three ended up as being hard-core liberals (Blackmun, Powell and Souter). So don't expect too much from GWB. Even if he thinks that he is nominating a conservative judge he may always become a Harry Blackmun

[Tarkin]

being hard-core liberals (Blackmun, Powell and Souter).

I of course meant Blackmun, Stevens and Souter :-)

[Cicero]

No, you misunderstood me. If Bush appoints a pro-abort judge, BUSH will go down in flames. I know, he's a lame duck, and will not stand for election again. But he will lose millions of votes from his base, the Democrats will start picking up seats in congress, and hillary will have a far better chance of winning in 2008.

I'm not just talking about my own views. I'm talking about millions of Evangelicals and pro-life Catholics who would stay home in 2006 and 2008. The momentum of the last three elections would be lost.

Sure, Bush could betray his base and put a flaming RINO on the Supreme Court because he happens to be an old friend and political associate. But it would be the end of his support from social conservatives.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the response. I agree.

[DoughtyOne]

Lets just hope others are right, that Gonzales wouldn't get the nod.

[BillyBoy]

The more things change, the more they remain the same?

TEAM RINO SCOTUS NOMINEE 1990

George Bush -- The "Compassionate Conservative" President

John Sununu -- The "Pragmatic Conservative" Advisor

David Souter -- The "Stealth Conservative" Judge (actually a RINO) who can "win over the Democrats"

TEAM RINO SCOTUS NOMINEE 2005?

George Bush -- The "Compassionate Conservative" President

John Sununu -- The "Pragmatic Conservative" Advisor

Alberto Gonzalez -- The "Stealth Conservative" Judge (actually a RINO) who can "win over the Democrats"

[GOPGuide]

*Ping*

[BlackRazor]

The Democrats will allow Bush to name a solid conservative to replace Renquist, as that will not change the ideological composition of the court.

Well, you better get on the phone to Ralph Neas, then. Because he's been saying the exact opposite, that they will fight any conservative nominee, even to replace Rehnquist.

Anyone who thinks the Democrats are going to roll over is being naive, expecially after what we've seen the last four years. Forcing Bush to select a moderate to replace Rehnquist is the Democrats' one best chance to alter the court's composition for a generation and they know it. I expect them to go all out opposing a conservative replacement for Rehnquist. They have absolutely nothing to lose (worst case = status quo) and everything to gain.

[kittymyrib]

OH NO! That would be the end of the Christian conservative involvement with the Republican Party and the Democrat Socialists would be in charge for another 40 years.

[BlackRazor]

The president should be able to pick someone already on the court to be Chief Justice.

Of course he can. Historically, it has been the exception, though. The vast majority of Chief Justices have been new nominees not already on the court.

The disadvantage of elevating an existing associate is that it requires two confirmation hearings -- one for the new nominee and another for elevating an existing associate to Chief Justice.

Depending on whether the Bush administration wants to fight two contentious hearings or not, they may choose to kill two birds with only one hearing by nominating an outsider for Chief Justice.

I'm not advocating Gonzalez, BTW. I'm just saying that I expect the White House will only want one confirmation hearing in this environment, so whoever the new nominee is, I expect that person will be put up for Chief.

[Iron Eagle]

Bush will not choose Alberto Gonzales for this pick -- at this time.

If he does pick a Hispanic for the seat -- which I am sure he is feeling like he must, it will be Garza.

I think the solid money is on Luttig at this point due to age, credentials, and conservative pedigree. Bush's fear is, of course, that Rehnquist will be his only shot to appoint a Hispanic, and the GOP wants to pick the Hispanic -- for obvious reasons.

There is a great struggle on this within the White house -- and I hear that Bush's loyalty to his people may be an issue with this pick. It was previously believed that he would not name Gonzales, and certainly not name him on this pick.

[Know your rights]

If Bush appoints a pro-abort judge, BUSH will go down in flames. I know, he's a lame duck, and will not stand for election again. But he will lose millions of votes from his base

I think you're right. While the '08 nominee should be judged on his or her individual merits, Bush nominating a pro-abort will certainly make pro-lifers look more skeptically at any GOP candidate's profession of being pro-life ... and if the GOP senators support the nomination they will have helped the party earn that skepticism.

[GOPGuide]

"If he does pick a Hispanic for the seat -- which I am sure he is feeling like he must, it will be Garza."

I have NOTHING against Emilio Garza, but Rove has to be shitcanned for tricking Bush into thinking that Republicans sucking up to 3rd World immigrants is going to make these immigrants vote Republican.

Illiterate Mexican Peasents will NOT EVER Vote Republican PERIOD, no matter how many Hispanic Supreme Court justices Bush nominates.

A competent Advisor would be telling him to cut back on legal immigration and seal off the Southern border (There were two or three times the GOP COngress under Gingrich tried to slash legal immigration from 1 million to 600 thousand. Clinton actually was ready to cut legal immigration by 40% in 1996 because Labor Unions wanted it cut).

The only reason Rove and Bush haven't destroyed the party through mass immigration is because of strong opposition in the House of Representatives (Notably Chairman's Sensenbrenner and Hostettler)and vehement opposition from Republican voters.

"There is a great struggle on this within the White house -- and I hear that Bush's loyalty to his people may be an issue with this pick. It was previously believed that he would not name Gonzales, and certainly not name him on this pick."

Bush's loyalty should be to the Republican Prolifers that got his Connecticut cowboy ass elected to the Presidency, and the ProLife Congressional Majority that has advanced his agenda not to some underbrained asskisser like Gonzales.

If Bush appoints Gonzales, we will lose Santorum's seat, and we will have the entire ProLife base ready to walk out on us in 2008.

[DoughtyOne]

Interesting observation

[Preachin']

"Furthermore every prolife group in the US WILL ABANDON the GOP FOREVER."

Starting with me.

[lodwick]

Gonzales, like Bush, is pro-abortion, anti-gun, open borders, pro-torture, yada, yada, yada.

What a horrible idea to have a member of LaRaza and Mecha "serving" anywhere in government.

[BlackRazor]

Bush will not choose Alberto Gonzales for this pick -- at this time.

I hope you're right. I can deal with an unknown quantity like Gonzales as a replacement for someone like Stevens or Ginsburg. Worst case is you maintain the status quo. Odds are you move the court a bit to the right. And if you get really lucky he turns into a stealth conservative.

But there's no way we should take that kind of extreme gamble for replacing one of the only three rock-solid conservatives on the court. Mess up with the Rehnquist replacement and you've just given the liberals the court for a generation.

[Cicero]

There's already a ton of skepticism about the Republican party, which has betrayed its base repeatedly over the past 60 years.

Bush has earned a degree of trust in the pro-life area, but he would certainly lose it if he blows the opportunity to rebalance the Supreme Court. There's hardly anything he can do in his eight years in office that is more important than taking back the courts, especially SCOTUS, from the tyranny of leftist radical judges. As we have often seen in the past, especially with David Souter, weak appointments will not turn the tide.