So someone with Gonzalez' intelligence and legal respect, but also a conservative Christian that would appear to be willing to dispense Roe is OK??? Really, I doubt that will be the Dem party line when Bush tries to appoint someone with exactly these characteristics. They'll be screaming bloody murder about securing personal rights. And there's no doubt that he (Bush) will be taking his cues from the religious base ... they will demand it and judicial appointments is their baby. Personally, I think the torture memo is a disgrace and writing it should be absolute bar to the SC.
I said they're both fine with me as Chief Justice, but of course that position isn't open yet. I would hope that whomever Bush appoints, that there be a free and open debate, giving ReidCo and KennedyCo and whomever wants to be heard a chance to make their case to the American people on why this person should or should not be on the court. It would be nice if it was a statesmanlike debate as well, though that's surely too much to hope for. After they make their case, vote. Just because Republicans have the majority doesn't mean all 55 or whatever they have will vote as a bloc.
Whatever; we knew this was coming when we re-elected Bush. This is part of what was at stake...did someone think otherwise?
Of course they'll vote as a block. You think any dissent will happen on a Supreme Court appointment??!! No chance.
God forbid we put someone on the Court who doesn't believe the United States should fight a war with one arm tied behind its back.
I think when Bush was re-elected nominations of anti-Roe justices was a given. If anyone thinks he's going to nominate someone who supports Roe or even has an open mind about it, they're deluding themselves. Like Mel says, we lost that fight in November. Now all we can hope for is getting the best of a bad bunch.
Who are you arguing with? No one has said the Dems will not care about potential Roe overturning. I would probably make the same argument. But if I keep Gonzalez out for this reason and let a goon like Cornyn in, then I have lost. I have to tell you, as someone who has worked as a lawyer on the enforcement side of things as well as as a private party trying to avoid enforcement, there is a huge difference in providing legal advice as to how far you can push the edge of the envelope and actually trying to determine the proper way to read a statute. I am not trying to defend the guy, my point is that in terms of stomach churning appointments, Gonzalez won't do it. And Mel, I doubt that anyone who voted for Bush is now thinking "oh, crap, I didn't realize he was going to appoint judges." They just don't care. Just like they don't care about mendacity, or being fooled again.
Here is a nice outline of some of the potential candidates. http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/2528428p-10904169c.html
The big line the Dems should draw is between conservatives who believe in deference to state legislatures (acceptable) and conservative activists who want to role federal power back to the pre-New Deal era. Any "Constitution-in-Exile" nominee should be filibustered. To me, that's the litmus test.
So not torturing people is equivalent to fighting with one hand tied behind our backs? Have we deluded ourselves that much into thinking that torture is really absolutely necessary?? What an inconvenient document that Geneva Convention is...
I'm a pro-life democrat. My observation is that, out of the horses apparently in the race, Democrats seem to be willing to accept appointment to SCOTUS of a clear political appointee that thinks Geneva Conv. is quaint over your basic Christian conservative judge who might take a piss on Roe. It makes clear to me (again) where the relative priorities of the Democratic party lie, which I find disgusting.
Oman hit on this already but that's not what I was saying. I'm fairly sure the Dems will try to fight a Gonzalez nomination. My only point was that given the list of potential nominees, Gonzalez is not as bad as many. And yes, I still think that for a variety of reasons (not just Roe) and despite the fact that I also think the torture memo is a disgrace.
I think you are going to see a big movement where many people decide that the abortion is not the touchstone of liberty. I think a lot of Dems and liberals and moderates are going to essentially by off on the spirit of O'Conner's theory that seemed to say Roe would ultimately cave in on itself. Or somesuch. I think a lot of people are just going to say, you know, I fought for women's rights to control their bodies, but screw 'em. I have other fish to fry. I think that will affect the next few nominations. Also hearing some stuff about Emilio Garza out of the Fifth Circuit. Low key, serious carnal who looks like Fred Flinstone.
I just am having a bit of problem following your logic. And I apologize. Are you saying that what disgusts you is that Dems are still obsessed with Roe when they should be looking at the serious damage that comes out of conservative contempt for the Geneva Convention and our consitutional duty to honor treaties? [Edit - I think I got it. Re your pro-life point.] I think both are different issues, and both are very important. And I think you read too much into labeling Dems as a group and also by reading too much into how individuals may think about who the least dangerous nominees are. My beef with the Dems is that they are not pushing green and international/UN issues enough. And I bet that is different than your beef with them.
I absolutely do (depending on who it is of course). Are Republicans united over John Bolton for UN Ambassador? Nope. There are a significant number of Republicans who could oppose a nominee.
God help us all. Bush will try to shove two right wing judges into lifetime appointments. Orwellian days are here to stay...
Here are some possible successors and short bios from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070100756.html?sub=AR
If Roe is overturned, that would actually help the Democrats. Abortion would still be protected in most states, but with Roe overturned, the majority who favor keeping abortion legal will become more focused on voting based on this one issue. And they will be voting for Democrats. Personally, I think the Democrats are wrong in making this case their litmus test. I hope that if Bush gets to nominate anyone to the high court, the person will be someone who strongly believes in freedom of speech, due process rights, and the kind of civil liberties that are being undermined in American political (and consequently legal) culture.
Damn! I had an intellectual infatuation with Sandra Day O'Connor, and now she's gone right out of my life.
I'm not being clear. Sorry. I have two basic beefs with the Dems: 1. Their decision that Roe is a civil right worth fighting for ... at any cost. 2. Their lack of leadership on an alternative agenda that should include energy conservation, preservation of national parks, non-fossil fuel energy research initiative, national health care, budget controls, reductions in defense spending, international cooperation on any number of issues ranging from global warming to strengthening the UN as a force for peace and human rights. My premise is that No. 2 has been made subservient to No. 1. My belief is that support for abortion is the main reason for the Dems lost majority in Congress. As a result, assuming that the Dems wanted to form a "progressive" agenda, they lack the power or leadership to do so because of the pro-choice albatross. In reality, however, I'm more cynical. Not only are the Democrats powerless to pursue a progressive agenda, but they have become disinterested in that agenda as well. So, when we get to the discussion over SCOTUS nominees, I see this pattern again being played out ... and a pro-life judge would get the filibuster under the Dem pro-choice litmus test for the Court, but someone who appears more moderate on Roe might get a grudging pass, even if it's Gonzalez, who had a hand in the formulation of policy resulting in torture done in the name of the USA. Such a person shouldn't get a sniff at the Court.
I partially agree. Some states would basically make Roe the law. Others would revert to prohibiting abortion with traditional exceptions for life/physical health. I don't think a majority supports Roe. I also do not think pro-choicers will become single-issue voters in significant numbers. *laughter in the aisles*
Did someone really suggest that Bush would want a federalist? Oh, man... Seriously... Come on... Really? A federalist? What next? Bush is for small government? Oh man... Stop it... You're killing me.
I think you are mixing apples and oranges. Roe represents a question of liberty. It is exactly the kind of case that the Supreme Court is there for. The other issues you listed, "energy conservation, preservation of national parks, non-fossil fuel energy research initiative, national health care, budget controls, reductions in defense spending, international cooperation on any number of issues ranging from global warming to strengthening the UN as a force for peace and human rights" are fundamentally spending issues that don't necessarily impact the type of liberty issues that Roe is a poster child for. In essense, the people could vote a more progressive ticket in all of these issues and it wouldn't impact a fundamental liberty interest or involve unequal treatment or due process. Thus, if you are talking Supreme Court justices, a decision regarding medical marijuana will be more important than all the cases dealing with statutory interpretation of the litiany of issues you describe. The fact that the Dems have been flaccid about all of your issues doesn't mean that it is because of Roe. They have just been lazy and passive and unimaginative. More importantly, the one leader they had that could have given them a boost of energy squandered his chance. Just because I want a progressive and smart agenda doesn't mean I have to be pro a bunch of men telling women what to do with their bodies -- the most fundamental attack on liberty there is. You are describing a deal with the devil that does not have to be made.