Skip to comments.Bush to speak at 11:15 EDT (O'Connor)
Posted on 07/01/2005 8:01:28 AM PDT by cll
Per Foxnews.com banner
Souter, Kennedy and others have found their way onto the court only to put forth decisions like Kelo vs. New London (eminent domain).
Define the views of an 'actual' conservative, as you see them, bill.
And be specific please. I'm curious as to what you mean by that definition.
A little truth about this consistently pro-Life President (mixed in with the pot stirring going on) is refreshing. :o)
If Bush's nominee is filibustered, he could name Bork as a temporary "recess apointment." But there is another person who should be considered:
On the very day that Reagan named O'Connor, the Wall Street Journal published a convincing letter to the editor making the case that an economist should be named to the Supreme Court. I read it, and I thought "Great idea! And I know who would be perfect for it - Thomas Sowell!" Then I read the byline of the letter to the editor - and it was by Thomas Sowell!
- a person who is renowned for lucid analysis
- a person who Ted Kennedy is contemptuous of
- a person who is a friend of Clarence Thomas
- a person who applied for the very seat on the bench that Reagan named O'Connor to.
When Kennedy was grilling Clarence Thomas he tried to associate Thomas with Sowell as a way of discrediting Thomas in the eyes of the Democratic majority on the Judiciary Committee of the time. Thomas didn't comment, and was confirmed - but he would have loved to have spoken in defense of Sowell!.
Just in passing mind you..
11:16 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. A short time ago I had a warm conversation with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has decided to retire from the Supreme Court of the United States. America is proud of Justice O'Connor's distinguished service and I'm proud to know her. Today, she has the gratitude of her fellow citizens, and she and John and their family have our respect and good wishes.
Sandra Day O'Connor joined the nation's highest court in 1981 as the first woman ever appointed to that position. Throughout her tenure she has been a discerning and conscientious judge, and a public servant of complete integrity. Justice O'Connor's great intellect, wisdom and personal decency have won her the esteem of her colleagues and our country.
Under the Constitution, I am responsible for nominating a successor to Justice O'Connor. I take this responsibility seriously. I will be deliberate and thorough in this process. I have directed my staff, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to compile information and recommend for my review potential nominees who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.
As well, I will continue to consult, as will my advisors, with members of the United States Senate. The nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court Justice that Americans can be proud of. The nation also deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate, characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote. I will choose a nominee in a timely manner so that the hearing and the vote can be completed before the new Supreme Court term begins.
Today, however, is a day to honor the contributions of a fine citizen and a great patriot. Many years ago, Sandra Day O'Connor chose the path of public service, and she served with distinction as a legislator and a judge in Arizona before joining the Supreme Court. When President Ronald Reagan appointed Justice O'Connor 24 years ago, Americans had high expectations of her -- and she has surpassed those expectations in the performance of her duties.
This great lady, born in El Paso, Texas, rose above the obstacles of an earlier time and became one of the most admired Americans of our time. She leaves an outstanding record of service to the United States and our nation is deeply grateful.
END 11:18 A.M. EDT
Sowell is 75 years old though.
Gonzalez is a former Democrat who has called Roe v Wade "settled law"... given the history of SCOTUS, where conservatives stay conservative and 'moderates' end up being raging liberals and they 'mature' on the Supreme Court, you can expect the moderate Gonzalez to be no better than OConnor, with a slight chance of being a Souter.
why risk it?
Conservatives deserve a reliable conservative voice on the bench.
"I would like to see the Dems reaction if GWB took Soiled Harry Reid's advice and appointed a current member of the Senate. They probably don't think he'd do it. Sen Mike Crapo is about as conservative as you can get, and he is 100% pro life. Plus another Republican would be appointed to fill his seat. The Dems would have fits but Harry is on record as saying Crapo is qualified and he would get through the Senate!"
The BEST Senator to nominate would be Sen John Cornyn.
He was on the Texas Supreme Court, was State AG, has good conservative credentials, etc.
What I'd really love though is State AG Greg Abbot to get nominated (come to think of it, I'd put him in the place to be Texas' US Senator if Cornyn gets 'promoted')
I'll help you keep optimism alive. And let's augment our optimism with some mighty prayers and a few phone calls. It is time for conservative GWB to emerge and act.
You are right. I'll put my money on it. President Bush values life.
My goodness - Theodore always sees the negative side of things...
one of our most unreliable "republican" votes on USSC retired. And they did it at a time when Hillary isn't President ... this is GOOD.
I'm optimistic: Bush will nominate someone who will have a better record for conservatives than OConnor. He will not nominate Gonzalez (and the reason he won't is simple: He just moved him into an important job 6 months ago.)
Short list: Luttig, Garza, Cornyn, McConnell.
I'm betting on Luttig - Bush likes to push all his chips on the table and Luttig is a real conservative. Dems will have fits, yet Luttig is the most qualified nominee out there.
Expect the 'nuclear option' pulled sometime in October to get Luttig on the bench, and a 58 yes - 42 vote confirming.
Democrats are ALWAYS warning Bush....its as common as "Muslim outrage over (current event here)"
"How about Alex Kozinski of the 9th circuit apptd by Reagan?
And...FDR moved HST into the vice presidency on Jan. 20, 1945, but by April 12, HST had left the vice presidency forever. Also, many attorneys general often serve for short periods of time, as with former Senator Saxbe in the Nixon administration? Or was it Ford?
Can you tell I have had it on here with these constant whiners and people that stir the pot from the 3rd party to the liberal types on here or you could say "Hate Bush and Republican" crowd? Fighting back now -- tired of reading crap and not posting against it -- those days are over.
"The odds of a white conservative judge being confirmed is low."
I think that's baloney ... Bush could and should nominate white-male conservative Judge Michael Luttig ... if the Dems try to filibuster, they will fall into a trap, hello nuclear option - we win 58-42.
But assuming Bush is itching to nominate a Hispanic, there is a perfectly respectable conservative Judge on hand with the right name: Judge Garza.
I'm generally a Bush supporter. But this is a real possibility. I think we owe it to Bush to give him a warning what the consequences will be if he lets his friendship for Gonzalez outweigh his principles and his political sense.
If he doesn't nominate Gonzalez, fine. Then none of this warning criticism applies.
I had no objections to Gonzalez as Attorney General.
"And...FDR moved HST into the vice presidency on Jan. 20, 1945, but by April 12, HST had left the vice presidency forever."
huh? So was FDR planning to die 4 months after that appointment? your comment makes zero sense.
Being the nation's AG is an *important* job, it will require another confirmation to get a replacement, it's not an easy process, etc. If Bush was 100% determined to put Gonzalez on the bench, he would have done it already.
Three consecutive attorneys generals (1972-75), Richard Kliendienst, Elliot L. Richardson, and William Saxbe, served 11 months, four months, and 13 months, respectively. It is not uncommon for attorneys general to serve short periods of time before taking other assignments.
And FDR may have well known that he would not complete his fourth term. FDR did not keep HST informed if he thought he would not remain long in the presidency. HST knew nothing about the Manhattan Project until after assuming the presidency.
The point is: Gonzales serving seven or eight months as attorney general before going to the Supreme Court would not be unusual. I hope Gonzales is NOT the choice.
The attorney general is an important job, but it did not become part of the Cabinet until 1870, when the Department of Justice was created. Early attorneys general came and went, such as future Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, brother-in-law of Francis Scott Key.
The electorate votes for these senators. The senators may not be so out of touch with the "comon people" as you believe.
It will take a President with a very clear Constitutional vision and a large Senate majority to fix this problem.
Clearly we need to elect a lot more Constitution-friendly senators. But, clearly we need a lot more Constitution-friendly people in the electorate to do that.
I blame the electorate.
GOOD! It needs to be done, and I thank you for stepping in and speaking up for the truth!
You produce interesting trivia that is not pertinent to the point.
The Democrats have already shown their unreasoning and unrelenting obstructionism on John Bolton and many other qualified nominees. Bush plays poker, and he knows that the key to winning is having a winning hand when the other guy puts all their chips down. well, the Democrats will have to move their chips in if Luttig is the nominee - they *will* filibuster, and we *will* bust up the obstructionist game with the 'consitutional option', to save the USSC, the circuit nominees, and the next "John Bolton" to come in the Liberal crosshairs.
Luttig is the choice. He will be sworn in by October 10th, 2005.
My wish, your wish, reality. MAKE IT SO:
"How many US Senators want to be put on the spot by a reversal of Roe v. Wade?
I venture to guess that it's less than 30."
You venture wrong. An attempt by liberal Senators to affirm support for Roe v Wade failed in the Senate, and at least 45 Senators, all Republicans are solid on pro-life.
"This being so, it is very much in the interest of a large bipartisan majority to have these "social issues" referred to a forum which is unreviewable and whose members are not subject to losing their jobs by failure to be reelected."
It's in the interest of *LIBERALS* that the 'divisive' social issues that separate them from 75% majorities be kept in the courts. Liberal elites are very powerful and cow the irresolute among politicians through media brow-beating.
But the American *people* are against judicial activism.
I think that at least one member of the Supreme Court should be an average schmoe with absolutely no legal training, but lots of common sense. My father is a truck driver and formerly a welder and a construction worker. He reads and writes at about the 8th grade level, but he's got common sense to spare. Someone like him would not have been duped by a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo and come to the conclusion that the government should be able to seize his home via eminent domain, so that an office building could be put in its place. He probably would have jumped over the bench and kicked the lawyer's ass. I think we need that kind of fresh perspective on the bench.
We The People...
God Bless your dad.
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.