July 07, 2005
WHEN ALBERTO GONZALES ISN'T CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH CONSERVATISM HAS WON:
Bush is biggest obstacle to a conservative court (ROBERT NOVAK, July 7, 2005, Chicago Sun-Times)
The right's morale was devastated by the president's comments in a USA Today telephone interview published on the newspaper's front page Tuesday: ''Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine. When a friend gets attacked, I don't like it.''Bush is a stubborn man, who sounded like he might really nominate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the face of deep and broad opposition from the president's own political base.
Adding to the tension is word from court sources that ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist also will announce his retirement before the week is over. That would enable Bush to play this game: Name one justice no less conservative than Rehnquist, and name Gonzales, whose past record suggests he would replicate retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on abortion and possibly other social issues. Thus, the present ideological orientation of the court would be unchanged, which would suit the left just fine.
Funny how the Right doesn't think W owes Blair the Kyoto treaty but he does owe them their choice of nominees.
Here's your parlay though, Factions line up for two Texas Hispanics (MICHAEL HEDGES, July 7, 2005, Houston Chronicle)
The two Texas conservative Hispanics seen as among the front-runners for a U.S. Supreme Court nomination are drawing support from different ends of the political spectrum.Many conservative activists back federal appeals Judge Emilio Garza, while liberals and moderates see U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as a less extreme option.
As President Bush examines a select list of possible nominees, there is speculation that he would make history by nominating a Hispanic for the first time.
Garza, of San Antonio, tops the list of acceptable Hispanic nominees for right-wing activists in part because of what they view as his like-minded approach to legal issues involving religion and abortion.
Name Garza now and Gonzales for Chief.
MORE:
The Circus Comes to Town: If Bush nominates the right candidate for the Supreme Court, Democrats could be in trouble, again. (Hugh Hewitt, 07/07/2005, Weekly Standard)
AMONG THE MOST ENTHUSIASTIC people in Washington when news of Justice O'Connor's retirement surfaced had to have been North Carolina Senator Elizabeth Dole. Senator Dole is chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and she is following two blockbuster cycles for the committee under the leadership of Virginia's George Allen in 2003-2004, and Majority Leader Frist in 2001-2002. The Center for Responsive Politics credits Allen's team with raising $78,980,487 in his 24 months, for an average monthly take of about $3,300,000. Previous cycles are pre-McCain-Feingold and thus difficult to compare, but the data available for the first five months of 2005 from the FEC suggest that Senator Dole is exceeding the performance of Allen, with $16,867,661 raised--a monthly clip of more than $3,373,000. And that was before the NRSC added more than $9 million in proceeds from the "President's Dinner" in mid-June.A solid majority in the Senate helps the GOP, of course, as does President Bush's willingness to help raise the funds. But in a cycle including raising money for Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee--who voted against the war, did not vote for President Bush, and has voted against many solid judges--Dole cannot count on grassroots enthusiasm to keep the small checks coming.
The coming Supreme Court showdown changes all that, which is why I expect some combination of Judges Garza-Luttig-McConnell-Roberts to provide the two nominees that will probably be needed. Time and again President Bush has proven that his political and policy judgments are exactly the sort to
rally the grassroots, and a double SCOTUS vacancy would provide not just the perfect opportunity to follow through on his campaign pledges concerning judges, but also to energize a somewhat sullen group of activists disappointed by the Senate's glacial pace.
Has the Daddy Party become the Baby Party? Posted by Orrin Judd at July 7, 2005 06:55 AM
Are you serious?!
No wonder so many were flummoxed at the trouncing of McCain in South Carolina! You underestimate the conservativism of this country; in the South, particularly, Gonzalez is a liberal.
As I recall, the guy who'd appointed Gonzales to the bench won SC.
Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 11:29 AM"Funny how the Right doesn't think W owes Blair the Kyoto treaty but he does owe them their choice of nominees"
Yeah, that's a real knee-slapper. Of course if Bush had promised Blair help on Kyoto in order to receive help in Iraq, then some fuddy duddies would think he does owe him.
Posted by: h-man at July 7, 2005 11:39 AMyes, if
Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 12:10 PMDid Bush indicate that if he was elected, he would appoint a conservative, who be found pleasing to the Christian Right?
Posted by: h-man at July 7, 2005 12:16 PMHe stated he'd appoint judges using the same standards and process he'd used in Texas.
Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 12:32 PMTherefore, we should expect the same sort of results. And, yes, the current epidemic of whining is infantile.
Posted by: ghostcat at July 7, 2005 01:32 PMThe UK, so I recall, doesn't have an electoral votes, nor is it represented officially in the Congress, although the importance some of the more dense American pundits and bloggers place on its opinion make one wonder if the Revolution ever actually occured.
Again, I can't really understand what the problem is with Gonzalez and I haven't read anything from anyone whose opinion matters to me citing substantive reasons I should oppose him.
Posted by: bart at July 7, 2005 01:38 PMBritain is our cousin like Australia and a few other places. Decent people like to support family.
Posted by: Bob at July 7, 2005 03:03 PMI'm an only child.
Decent people don't support family that goes off half-cocked. We keep the crazy aunt IN the attic, we don't give her the car keys, the 12 gauge and a bottle of Jack Daniels. Nor do we let her tell us what stocks to pick, which is the moral equivalent of signing on to Kyoto because of what Tony Blair says about unscientific claptrap like global warming.
Posted by: bart at July 7, 2005 03:28 PMOnly child. Yes, that explains much.
Posted by: Bob at July 7, 2005 04:27 PMAnd an argument for retrospective abortion.
Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 04:53 PMYeah, that's right, OJ. SC voted Bush because of Gonzales.
Posted by: Slider at July 7, 2005 05:34 PMBTW, whining is good. You keep the president on his toes that way.
Posted by: Slider at July 7, 2005 05:36 PMSlider:
That we can't determine, but we can say with complete certitude that it didn't vote against him because of.
Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 05:42 PMThe case where Gonzales attacked Priscilla Owen (In re Jane Doe 1(II), 19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000) was probably not published until late in 2000, thus the ever diligent SC primary voters were not cognizant of the fact that he was a liberal.
Posted by: h-man at July 7, 2005 06:22 PMReading articles about Gonzales in the NYTimes and WSJ yesterday, I am no longer convinced that Gonzales is as squishy as his detractors think he is.
The chief claims against him arrise out of a case under the Texas parental notification of abortion statute which had, as required by SCOTUS a judicial by-pass provision. Gonzales read the statute as written, and jabbed Pricilla Ownen for trying to narrow the by-pass.
To me it is more important to read it as written than to be anti or pro anything.
The second gripe with Gonzales is the briefs that were filed by the government in the affirmative action case (Grutter). The anti-aa people wanted a full denunciation of AA, but business groups wanted to be sheltered from any second guessing of what they have already done, and the military wanted to be left to its own devices. The results were political.
I will have to go along with Bush on whoever he selects, because he will be the only one who talked to them about their real ideas. If its Gonzales, I don't think I will have a problem with it.
However, I don't think Bush will appoint Gonzales and then have to go hire a new AG. I think he might do it in 2007, but not now. Gonzales was appointed AG this year. I don't think Bush as an executive wants to shuffle his people that quickly. He knew that there was likely to be an opening this year, and I don't think he would have appointed Gonzales to AG and then have to replace him 6 months later.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 7, 2005 06:38 PM