← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · confederate_commando
Thread ID: 18976 | Posts: 17 | Started: 2005-07-04
2005-07-04 10:37 | User Profile
Gonzales faces conservative block
Alberto Gonzales could become the US first Hispanic top judge Members of conservative groups around the US are rallying to head off the nomination of US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court. Mr Gonzales has been tipped as a likely candidate for the vacancy after Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement from the nine-member court on Friday.
Mr Gonzales, a close ally of President George W Bush, would be the first Hispanic to sit on the court.
Mr Bush is not expected to announce his choice until after the G8 summit.
He is facing growing calls to appoint a centrist to replace Ms O'Connor - the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court.
Last week, a delegation of conservative lawyers met the White House chief of staff to warn that appointing Mr Gonzales would divide conservatives, the New York Times reports.
Paul M Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, said he had told administration officials that nominating Mr Gonzales would divide the president's supporters.
"We have let the administration know through whatever channels we have that Gonzales would be an unwise appointment because of the opposition of some of the groups," he said.
He said some groups would actively oppose Mr Gonzales, while "others like the Southern Baptists and myself would simply not help".
We would oppose him because we don't believe he has a philosophy that we can determine
Tom Minnery Conservative advocacy group Focus on the Family
Possible successors
The conservatives who oppose Mr Gonzales' nomination say he is too moderate and that his views on issues such as abortion and affirmative action are not far enough to the right.
"We would oppose him because we don't believe he has a philosophy that we can determine. We are not enthused," Tom Minnery of conservative advocacy group Focus on the Family told the Washington Post.
"He is someone who is apparently still developing his philosophy, and that's not good enough," Mr Minnery added, citing Mr Gonzales' "lack of open commitment to interpret the constitution as it was written".
Democratic senators have said they will oppose a conservative nominee.
'Unaffected'
Mr Gonzales, who is making a surprise visit to Iraq, has said the criticism does not affect him.
"Many of the people speaking probably don't have all the information about prospective nominees. What's important is what the president of the United States thinks about me," he said.
"That's evident by the position he has asked me to fill [as attorney general]."
Mr Gonzales was in Baghdad to meet US and Iraqi officials for talks on efforts to build an Iraqi judicial system.
He said he also wanted to show support for US soldiers on the Independence Day holiday weekend.
The Supreme Court judges - appointed for life - have the final say on US law and justice.
Mr Bush has said he will choose a nominee that the nation deserves and "Americans can be proud of".
Ms O'Connor, 75, has often cast the deciding vote on the nine-member court, leading some US commentators to call her the most powerful woman in America.
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4646499.stm[/url]
2005-07-04 12:17 | User Profile
When first faced with the poll question, my visceral reponse, which I actually spoke aloud, was "No way! He's not that fooked up!" But upon 2-3 seconds of reflection, I decided to rephrase that thought, which is to say he is that fooked up, but he is probably not going to express it in such a vile manner at this particular time. He's a traitor, but thoughts other than treasonous ones may be on his mind in this instance. I suspect we get a conservative nominee this time. When Rehnquist goes, we get another Souter on the Court (probably Gonzales), but are supposedly mollified via the elevation of Scalia or Thomas to the Chief Justiceship. If the first nominee for O'Connor's seat (the conservative, that is) gets denied by the Senate (it could happen), then we'll have two new Souters upon Rehnquist's retirement (one of which will certainly be Gonzales).
2005-07-04 13:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE]"Many of the people speaking probably don't have all the information about prospective nominees. What's important is what the president of the United States thinks about me," he [Gonzales] said. [/QUOTE]What he's really saying is: screw everyone else. The president's constituency, the American people, be damned.
A perfect illustration of the sheer arrogance of the Washington power elite.
When the Emperor finally installs Gonzales on the Supreme Court, I hope it shows movement conservatives, once again, that Bush is not one of them. But I somehow doubt they will get the message.
2005-07-05 18:15 | User Profile
confederate_commando,
A Neo-Stalinist "Wetback." Remember Alberto Gonzales is one who thought up Gitmo prison camp and said the President can kidnap, imprison, and execute anyone in secrete without trial.
2005-07-11 19:56 | User Profile
**Conservative Litmus Test **
Many conservatives have forgiven or ignored Shrubââ¬â¢s liberal, multicultural and globalist tendencies over the last four years. The GOP faithful looked the other way as W wiped his well-heeled Patriot Act boots on the Bill of Rights because America was at war. Fiscally conservative Republicans hardly mumbled or grumbled as GWB supported and encouraged budgets that would have made Lyndon Johnson blush in shame, because HE was making the world safe for democracy. Constitutional conservatives stood in the corner as ââ¬Åtheir manââ¬Â ridiculed law-abiding American citizens as vigilantes, simply because they were trying to protect the sovereignty of our nation at the perimeter, a job that our government has failed to attempt in the last 30 years.
The scene is now set for the big litmus test of his presidency. Will George W. Bush betray conservatives and Constitutionalists in the upcoming ââ¬Åbattleââ¬Â for Sandra Day Oââ¬â¢Connorââ¬â¢s robe? On many occasions he has stated that he will not require that his appointments be anti-Roe, but only require that they are strict interpreters of the Constitution. Given Bush IIââ¬â¢s approach to seminal conservative agendas such as affirmative action, illegal immigration, fiscal restraint and individual liberty, we should all prepare for the worst.
Past Republican presidents like Nixon, Reagan and Bush I made judicial appointments that proved to be the worst kind of Warren-esque nightmares. These decisions were usually made to appease critics who accused them of being too conservative. Sometimes the appointments went horribly wrong because the men, or woman, were chosen for reasons other than their judicial background or legal acumen. Rumors are already flying that GOP leaders are whispering to the administration that he must chose a woman. Of course we all know that Bush wants to appoint the first Hispanic, and one of his drinking buddies (and anything but a strict Constitutionalist), to the seat.
Conservatives must realize that Congress has abandoned its Constitutional mandate to legislate in some of the most important areas of public concern. The Supreme Court has filled this vacuum, and as long as a liberal Supreme Court believes our Constitution is a ââ¬Åliving documentââ¬Â, it is but a meaningless piece of paper to be interpreted at will. If this president fails to alter the balance of power, conservatives will wait a long time for such an opportunity to present itself again.
Will Bush pass this test? Probably not.
Visit cobbtown.com for more!
2005-07-13 01:24 | User Profile
Bushie wants wetback on Supreme Court!
[QUOTE]Tuesday, July 12, 2005 12:10 a.m. EDT
Dems Leak Bush's Court Short List
Top Senate Democrats floated the names of potential candidates for the Supreme Court on Tuesday in a meeting with President Bush, describing them as the type of nominee who could avoid a fierce confirmation battle.
Several officials familiar with the discussion said Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Ed Prado of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, both of whom are Hispanic, were among the names mentioned as Bush met with key lawmakers from both parties to discuss the first high court vacancy in 11 years.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, noting a commitment by those involved not to discuss names.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the committee, refused to confirm that they offered those two names, but said "those are two of the three I would think would have good support from both parties."
Bush was noncommittal about his choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has resigned effective with the confirmation of her successor. "I'm going to be deliberate in the process," he told reporters at the White House.
Bush "didn't give us any names," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said after the session had broken up.
Besides Reid and Leahy, Bush met with Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. Vice President Dick Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card also attended.
The administration has consulted widely with Democrats in the 10 days since O'Connor announced her plans to resign, and the early morning session at the White House was part of that effort.
The meeting came at a time when the president is under pressure from conservatives who want a court that will reverse precedent on abortion rights, affirmative action, homosexual rights and other issues. Some conservatives have criticized Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is close to Bush and frequently mentioned as a potential candidate, questioning whether he would vote to overturn the landmark 1973 court ruling that gave women the constitutional right to an abortion.
For their part, Democrats are urging Bush to seek a "consensus candidate," one who would win confirmation without a bitter struggle. But they have relatively little leverage in purely numerical terms. Republicans hold 55 seats in the Senate and can confirm any of Bush's picks unless Democrats mount a filibuster. The White House would need 60 votes to overcome that.
Democrats have done extensive research on dozens of potential replacements for O'Connor and the names of Sotomayor and Prado have emerged, along with others, as among those viewed as acceptable. Leahy suggested the names in the meeting, although Reid's presence signaled his approval.
According to an official government Web site, Sotomayor was named a U.S. District judge in 1991 by former President George H.W. Bush, the president's father, and confirmed in August 1992. President Clinton nominated her for a seat on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997, and she was confirmed in 1998.
President Reagan nominated Prado to a seat on the U.S. District Court in 1984. The current President Bush picked him for his current post in 2003, and he was confirmed on a vote of 97-0.
Frist praised Bush for reaching out to Democrats, saying that what the administration is doing "is pretty unprecedented if you look back in history. He is reaching out aggressively. He has contacted - he or his staff have contacted - over 60 United States senators, each of the members of the Judiciary Committee, over half or two-thirds of the Democrats."
Democrats said that was fine - as far as it went.
"This certainly is a good first or second step," Reid said at a news conference outside the White House. "This process needs to move forward. And I was impressed with the fact the president said it would; there will be more meetings, consultations."
Officials familiar with the meeting said Reid was more blunt in private, telling Bush he didn't want to wind up reading about the president's eventual pick in the newspaper without having had a chance to offer his views beforehand.
Laura Bush, too, got in some gentle lobbying during the day.
"I would really like him to name another woman," the first lady said on NBC's "Today" show, in an interview from Cape Town, South Africa, where she is traveling. "I admire and respect Sandra Day O'Connor, but I know that my husband will pick somebody who has a lot of integrity and strength."
Bush seemed a bit surprised that Mrs. Bush told reporters what she thought. "I can't wait to hear to her advice - in person - when she gets back," he said in the Oval Office after a meeting with the leader of Singapore.
McClellan would not say whether the president was leaning toward selecting a woman. "The president is going to consider a diverse group of individuals for the vacancy that is available," his spokesman said.
Asked about Democrats' objections to specific candidates said to be under consideration, McClellan said, "No individual should have veto power over a president's selection."
Bush and Senate Republicans have said they hope to have O'Connor's replacement confirmed and sworn in before the court convenes for its new term in October.
ïÿý 2005 Associated Press.
[url]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/12/121054.shtml[/url][/QUOTE]
2005-07-13 05:03 | User Profile
Bush has too much on his plate right now. He will not nominate Gonzales. He doesn't need or want another battle in Congress and more importantly as this thread shows, the Right itself has problems with Gonzales, and that's not what he wants. He is at risk of losing the Right to Life and many others. I look for him to definitely nominate someone who "appears" to not have rendered many judgements regarding abortioin, but Bush will talk privately to the nominee, and get word that the person is Pro-Life. That's how it operates. What the press says is what they are told, like scrap crumbs off the table to a dog. Therefore, look for Bush not to nominate Gonzales, who is happy as AG, but a true Pro-Life candidate, without the press even knowing about it. Sly, and it will happen, and we will have a good new Judge, finally.
2005-07-13 07:20 | User Profile
I received a email alert from the Gun Owners of America yesterday which provided evidence of Alberto's opposition to the intent of the second amendment of our Constitution. He also believes the Constitution is a "living document" and that only the nine justices on the court have the capacity to explain what it means." The latter is a revealing statement if I have ever heard one and I have no doubt Gonzales would attempt to legislate from the bench instead of interpreting the Constitution.
You may contact the GOA at [url]http://www.gunowners.org[/url] to obtain a copy of this 4 page alert which also contains a list of pro-second amendment alternative candidates who, of course, would be strict interpreters and not legislative/political judges.
K
2005-07-13 08:47 | User Profile
Hey, I know you...
...you know me too:thumbsup: [url="http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/3199/masterrace809bv.gif"][img]http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/3199/masterrace809bv.gif[/img][/url]
[QUOTE=311inAZ]I received a email alert from the Gun Owners of America yesterday which provided evidence of Alberto's opposition to the intent of the second amendment of our Constitution. He also believes the Constitution is a "living document" and that only the nine justices on the court have the capacity to explain what it means." The latter is a revealing statement if I have ever heard one and I have no doubt Gonzales would attempt to legislate from the bench instead of interpreting the Constitution.
You may contact the GOA at [url="http://www.gunowners.org/"]http://www.gunowners.org[/url] to obtain a copy of this 4 page alert which also contains a list of pro-second amendment alternative candidates who, of course, would be strict interpreters and not legislative/political judges.
K[/QUOTE]
2005-07-13 11:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Justin Lee]Hey, I know you...
...you know me too:thumbsup: [url="http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/3199/masterrace809bv.gif"][img]http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/3199/masterrace809bv.gif[/img][/url][/QUOTE]
Yes indeed! Its good to see another AZ Confederate American on the forum!
K
2005-07-13 13:20 | User Profile
I voted "yes", and even if Bush does not pick this one , he will pick a liberal judge who will not vote with the Christian Right because to do so would be against Bush's special interests.
2005-07-13 13:30 | User Profile
I think it is almost certain that Dubya's nominee will be a woman, since replacing O'Connor with a man would be a net drop in 'diversity' and would make the confirmation battle more difficult. I think the spic female mentioned in Faust's post, Sonia Sotomayor, is a likely candidate. After all, how could anyone except a HATER object to someone who is both female and Hispanic? She's got virtue hard-coded in her DNA!
2005-07-13 18:01 | User Profile
[IMG]http://www.abanet.org/publiced/images/sm_sonia.gif[/IMG] Sonia Sotomayor
This [I]marrana[/I] would give us a third Jew on the Court. This appointment would be a disaster.
2005-07-13 18:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Sonia Sotomayor
This marrana would give us a third Jew on the Court. This appointment would be a disaster.[/QUOTE] Female and Hispanic and Jewish? That may be simply too tempting for Georgie Boy to resist, especially now that the First Lady has come out in favor of a woman to replace O'Connor -- [url="http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/327654p-279990c.html"]http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/327654p-279990c.html [/url]
2005-07-13 20:11 | User Profile
I voted no. I don't think he will because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would be happy with his selection. The Republicans would see him as too liberal. The Demcrats would like the fact that he is latino but would not like his tortue record. If he does, he's putting the nail in the coffin of his party.
2005-07-13 20:20 | User Profile
If he does, he's putting the nail in the coffin of his party.
Beats me what the Chimp is gonna do, but I will say that apres moi, les deluge does seem to be Bush's guiding light when it comes to making decisions, even if he can't pronounce it.
2005-07-14 04:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas][img]http://www.abanet.org/publiced/images/sm_sonia.gif[/img] Sonia Sotomayor
This marrana would give us a third Jew on the Court. This appointment would be a disaster.[/QUOTE] Jesus Wept. That is a prospective Supreme Court Judge?
The Apolcalypse is upon us.