Skip to comments.Bush faces many options to replace O'Connor
Posted on 07/03/2005 8:48:41 AM PDT by LouAvul
WASHINGTON As President Bush prepares for what may become a history-changing appointment to the Supreme Court, one thing appears near-certain: Bush's pick will be a conservative whose vote could shift the balance of power on the divided court.
Beyond that, though, the president will be confronting a multiplicity of choices as he arrives at a successor to Sandra Day O'Connor, who announced her surprise resignation from the court on Friday.
Will he appoint the first-ever Latino to the high court? Will he select another woman? Will he seek a far-to-the-right conservative who will touch off a titanic confirmation battle in the Senate?
Or will he opt for more of a consensus candidate who could win easier confirmation, thereby enhancing prospects for other elements of his second-term agenda?
However Bush decides, his choice could offer the greatest insight on how Bush wants to leave his mark on the Supreme Court and the country for possibly many years after his term expires in 2009.
"This is the ultimate appointment that will determine whether our rights under the Constitution are protected or curtailed," said Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, of California, the only female member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "What is apparent is the next justice will determine the future of Roe v. Wade."
(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...
Well if the libs say we need to replace her with a woman, I have the perfect candidate:
Janice Rogers Brown
That'll get the Dems blood boiling.
I second that.
I have a feeling that Bush is going to put Gonzales up.
If he does we are sunk. He is not conservative enough.
Bush and the Rep. were put into office to speak for the conservative.
Brown for the first pick, Owen for the second (when Rehnquist retires, and Thomas is CJ), and Pryor when Stevens either resigns or kicks the bucket.
Excellent choices. I'd love to watch the liberals incur massive damage by trying to defeat Rogers and Owens.
What I dread is a Gonzales nomination, unless he's been posing as a "moderate" conservative all this time and will emerge as a true conservative. But I'd much rather see true conservatives nominated from the beginning.
Why tried to figure who will be appointed. Never happen. The Democrats are still running the Country. And you know, even if the Constitutional Option is brought before the floor, it will be turned down. The Republicans have been outwitted every time they move, what makes us think they will win. We have no strength and President Bush just doesn't get it. The fight is no longer in Iraq, it is here!!!! And Social Security, what in the hell does it matter, the Democrats will just win and raise taxes. And the borders, what borders??? What else can we expect based on past performance.
The liberal press is praying that he will nominate Gonzalez, because it would split the party and put an end to Bush's hopes of conservative support in the next elections.
I don't think he's that stupid.
Bush needs to pick an unknown traffic court judge from a small town out in the middle of nowhere. He or she would have no opposition because nobody would have heard of him. (sarcasm)
Wonder which "elements of his second-term agenda" the Dems are supposedly ready to concede if only he gives them the liberal SC Justice they want?
No, Dianne, the future of Roe v. Wade depends on whether the reasoning in that case is or is not sound. Were Roe v. Wade based upon sound Constitutional principles, you would not be worried about the future of Roe v. Wade.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said two women are a minimum on the court.
Earth to Arlen: If two women on the court is a minimum all of the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s and 1970s ought to be declared null and void as that legislation is allegedly based on the premise that neither race nor color nor creed nor gender etc. should determine a persons qualifications that only merit should. But then I guess you and others really believe in quotas.
Earth to Arlen, Part II: Dont we have five women on the court now -- John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day OConnor, David Hackett Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Steven G. Breyer?
Bush has already pledged to consult with two key Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
I hope Bush consults with them and asks each of them for a rank-ordered list of their top ten candidates -- and then crosses each of those candidates off any list he now has.
Among appellate judges with high reputations among conservative activists are J. Michael Luttig and J. Harvie Wilkinson of the 4th circuit in Richmond, Va., and Samuel Alioto of the 2nd circuit in Philadelphia.
Conservative activists?! What the heck is the author of this article smoking? Medical pot?
while Edith Hollan Jones is a 56-year-old appellate judge who has questioned the Roe v. Wade reasoning.
If courts were to delve into the facts underlying Roes balancing scheme with present-day knowledge, they might conclude that the womans choice is far more risky and less beneficial than the Roe court knew, Jones wrote in a 2004 opinion.
It seems to me that the only "outwitting" that has occurred is the result of Republicans supporting people like McCain and Arnold. Their actions create ambiguity about what it should mean to be a Republican.
Demoncrats in Kalifornia should have faced the choice between Davis and McClintock. Instead, we have "Davis-lite" submitting 115 billion dollar budgets. When the next slow-down comes, who are the voters going to hold reponsible for Kalifornia's problems? They will blame obstructionist Republicans who refused to raise taxes.
If he appoints Gonzales, the Republican party is sunk.
You mean there's another David Souter out there?
I fear that too.
However, I've noticed that at least with Cabinet posts, Bush has surprised us almost every time (sometimes good...sometimes bad) so I'll not pre-judge at this point.