Bush Being Deliberate In Picking Nominee President meets with Senate leaders about high court choices Tuesday, July 12, 2005; Posted: 10:19 a.m. EDT (14:19 GMT) http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/12/scotus.bush.ap/index.html WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush listened to suggestions from Democrats and Republicans on Tuesday about candidates for filling a Supreme Court vacancy, but did not tip his hand about his favorites. Asked later how close he was to making a decision, Bush told reporters, "Closer today than I was yesterday." "I'm going to be deliberate in the process," Bush told reporters later. "He didn't give us any names," Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters after the breakfast meeting. Besides Reid, Bush met with Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the committee; and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee. While the president has held telephone conversations with the four before, his meeting with them was their first meeting in person on the issue since Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement. All four lawmakers said the meeting was a positive step in bipartisan consultation with the White House on whom Bush will nominate to replace O'Connor. ~ Later on, after Bush announces nominee, you can be sure that Dems will accuse the Administration of a general lack of coordination... I wanted this bookmarked to prove GWB's sincere reaching-across-the-aisle cooperation in the early planning stages of this nomination. Bush's spirit of compassionate conservatism often gets overlooked in the Dems rush to judgment.
While in theory this seems like a nice little temporary bridge between the parties, most people in DC are calling it for what it is - an empty gesture.
Please. Taking the Senate Judiciary Committee's recommendations is standard protocol. Why do you think Clinton nominated Ginsberg? To paraphrase Chris Rock, you wanna cookie now? You're supposed to to do this, you low expectations having... person.
I think it's actually bulkier to say SCOTUS than "supreme court". Yeah, I subscribe to the "empty gesture" school of though... five years of divisiveness, from both parties, cannot be undone in an hour.
Ignoring InTheSantorumedMerkin as best as possible, I give BushCo big marks for reaching out and showing a little bipartisanship. This may be the first time since 9-11 that BushCo has done anything that's even remotely bipartisan (I'm sure someone will correct me - lol - but that's certainly the perception). I'm hoping that BushCo is finally realizing they won the 2000 election by 1 1/2 votes LESS than Gore, was reelected by the narrowest margin ever (and that against possibly the worst candidate imaginable), and has ratings down next to the dog turds and banana peels. They've cried wolf in the past and the master manipulator, Karl Rove (I heard he blew up the Hindenberg, BTW) is going the route of that toe-licker who now writes for the NY Post. In other words, there is no other route for BushCo to travel, except to the center. Finally, finally, finally BushCo is doing some governing from a place other than the hard right. Its wierd, a little tingly and downright rereshing.
Point of order: Does that yahoo still have his law license? Man, I would fall off my chair laughing if Roy Moore got the nod.
Here's a novel idea. Can I be (one of the?) first to propose the following? "Who wants to be a Supreme Court Judge" - live on C-Span! Should it be an American Idol-type show, with a panel of three people - one senator, one law professor, one federal judge - grilling a bunch of nominees (who would be the best legal Simon?) Or a Big-brother/survivor type show? Basically, americans can call/text in their votes - who needs a senate? Personally, I like the reality-tv dating show concept where some guys had to pretend to be gay/straight. It would be like George Bush searching for an ideological soulmate from a group of 20 lawyers - though some of the loudest abortion critics are secretly pro-abortion....
How can america go wrong? american idol has handed us timeless icons for the ages. Why not supreme court justices?
You're not structuring this right; we'll let the contestants decide cases which are then appealed to a real federal court-- the last one who hasn't been reversed gets the job...
No matter who Bush nominates, even if it's a moderate, the Dems will whine and whine and whine all over the tv sets around this country. The party is an embarrassment, no really it is.
I agree, things would be way easier with one party. Imagine how much easier we could do things like spread democracy with one party at the helm.
Schumer reports that for all the 'reaching out' the White House/BushCo. did on this one, they never once mentioned Roberts' name to a single Democratic senator.