Bush Between A Rock And A Hard Place In Replacing O’Connor
President Bush is mulling a short list of prospective Supreme Court nominees this weekend at the Camp David presidential retreat.
Liberals fear Bush will nominate someone to please the GOP’s right flank, which opposed the failed nomination of Harriet Miers. Conservatives expect Bush to choose someone with a stellar legal background, judicial experience and a public record of opinions.
For three weeks, conservative Republicans criticized Miers, saying the Texas lawyer and loyal Bush confidante had thin credentials on constitutional law and no proven record as a judicial conservative.
“Interest groups are not entitled to an extraconstitutional veto over Supreme Court appointments,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, argued in a letter they sent to Bush on Friday.
“We strongly urge you to refrain from nominating to the Supreme Court any of the handful of judicial nominees who were filibustered during the past four years, or any other similarly divisive candidate,” the Democrats wrote.
Topping conservatives’ list of favorites are federal appellate judges Samuel Alito, J. Michael Luttig, Alice Batchelder, Priscilla Owen, Michael McConnell, Karen Williams and Janice Rogers Brown as well as Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan.
Other potential candidates who are not judges include Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas; Chris Cox, a former congressman and current chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and Maureen Mahoney, a frequent litigator before the high court. She sometimes is referred to as the “female version” of John Roberts, Bush’s choice for chief justice, who was confirmed by the Senate 78-22.Washington Post
With liberals it seems to come down to one litmus test, that of abortion. Roe Vs. Wade is the pivotal concern for the democrats. They describe it as “turning back the clock”, and “taking away rights.” Many liberal groups are prepared, up in arms, and scared to death that Bush will pick someone who might not like killing babies, which they hold as a cherished “right.”
Now lets talk about political capital. Does Bush have any left? If he picks someone off the conservative favorite list, the democrats are set up perfectly to oppose it as a right wing idealouge. As many on the right were celebrating, and trying to claim that it was partly due to the Conservative Base’s pressure that Miers withdrew her nomination, could this have hurt Bush’s chances of putting a solid constitutionalist on the bench? The spin started immediately after her withdrawal from the democrats that she withdrew because of pressure from the “extreme right wing.” Now the withdrawal leave Bush between a rock and a hard place.
On one hand, the Conservative Base most definitely has its pressures, and the liberals are now in a position to cry that the next nominee, whoever it may be, is nothing more than Conservative activist that Bush has picked to satisfy his base. Throw in the RINO gang of fourteen led by McCain, and you’ve got a mess that would make anyone’s hair turn grey. If Bush picks one of the Conservative favorites it all really hinges on the strength of the republican Congress, and whether they will be willing to go nuclear. You can be sure that the democrats will not hestitate to filibuster if they think their precious right to abortion is threatened.
What our Supreme Court desperately needs is a strict Constitutionalist that will judge issues on their merit, and not an ideology other than one that alligns with the ideals of the Constitution. The Constitution to liberals is a living, and changing document, but to Conservatives it is a set of unchanging guidelines. In my opinion, whoever Bush chooses now, the democrats will be set to oppose and filibuster if they have to. Conservatives are likely to get the fight they wanted, and the Conservatives in Congress better be ready to go nuclear if they want his pick to pass.
Blogs for Bush is reporting that Harriet Miers’ failed nomination “is driving President Bush back to a tried-and-true formula for filling a high court vacancy: tapping a federal or state judge with a solid conservative paper trail.” At the same time, there is a A letter to Bush from Reid and Leahy asking him to pick a “moderate.”
Abortion activists NOW are begging O’Connor to stay on the Court. Yes, the left are scared, which means the democrats will fight this tooth and nail. Its gonna get ugly, and like I said before…to get the next pick through its gonna take the Republican Congress to be strong, and stand up for their core values.
Judicial activism is out of control in today’s courts, and too many judges are legislating from the bench. My main concern in Bush’s nex pick, is on whether they will try to write laws, and be swayed by the likes of legal activist groups like the ACLU. I hope Bush picks a conservative that we know will not give in to socialist views like those of the ACLU. I hope he picks someone the conservatives will get behind, and fight for to the finish.
Rightwing Nuthouse has a similar opinion.
Email This
Posted by Jay on October 29, 2005 3:27 pm
» Filed Under News
Trackback URL:
Comments
7 Responses to “Bush Between A Rock And A Hard Place In Replacing O’Connor”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
In the interest of fairness the article should mention the name of the SEVEN other Republicans on the Gang of 14. Also, there just ain’t no measurable difference between McCaiin’s Conservatism and Bush’s…’cause Bush ain’t no conservative either.
I keep hearing that Bush isn’t a Conservative lately. This seems to be a recent development in people’s minds. I don’t really think the majority share your view on this, otherwise they wouldn’t have reelected him. However, I understand why you feel this way. I don’t agree, but I understand.
As a lifelong Republican, I think it is funny so many people think Republican politicians have any interest in making abortion illegal. Most Americans don’t want abortion illegal (look at exit polls from any election), do you really think Republicans are going to go against that?
Doesn’t mean we can’t be hopeful that baby killing gets made illegal.
I think it’s funny that someone could be that stupid to post a comment like that. You think you’re going to get a bunch of people agreeing with you?
Abortion shouldn’t be legal…we shouldn’t be killing generations of children for someone’s convenience because they didn’t know enough to shut their legs.
20,000 babies are killed every day. I think that’s a pretty heavy duty statistic.
I’ve had people make the argument that if I was raped and got pregnant from the rape, they’d make me keep the child.
Does anybody have any idea what the statistics are for someone getting pregnant from a rape? That’s just utter nonsense.
Polls or no polls, abortion is killing innocent children who don’t have an opportunity to ask people to let them live.
I’ve also seen people take the position that being against abortion is being “against women’s rights”. That’s equally as absurd.
What I’m against is having sex without responsibility and using abortion as birth control. You should think before you do things and you’re responsible for your actions…sex is for procreation–people should engage in making love with that thought in mind–it could create a new life. And that’s as it was meant to be.
“Most Americans don’t want abortion illegal ” – mob rule is no basis for morality or law.
I sure wish abortion had been in vogue when all of these know-it-all liberals had been incubating.
Perhaps much of the argument would now be muted.