Rampant speculation Rehnquist will retire at 10AM eastern tomorrow. http://redstate.org/story/2005/7/7/224455/0680 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/7/23140/08784 http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_03_corner-archive.asp#068834 the source for all these may be Novak's column: http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak07.html -- Bush is biggest obstacle to a conservative court July 7, 2005 BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Conservatives who have spent more than a decade planning for this moment to change the balance of power on the Supreme Court are reeling from blows delivered by two dissimilar political leaders: Edward M. Kennedy and George W. Bush. Sen. Kennedy has succeeded with the news media in establishing a new standard of ''mainstream conservatism'' for a justice. President Bush has put forth ''friendship'' as a qualification for being named to the high court. Bush is by far the bigger obstacle in the way of a conservative court. While Kennedy's ploy presents a temporary problem, Bush's stance could be fatal. 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. Kennedy and his allies were taken by surprise last Friday when O'Connor declared she was leaving. Democrats had expected Rehnquist to go first. Since Rehnquist's replacement by a conservative would not change the court's balance, Kennedy could keep his filibuster gun in the closet for now. O'Connor's bombshell raised the possibility of a conservative switch on the court, and Kennedy reacted to the new climate quickly. ''Justice O'Connor was a mainstream conservative,'' Kennedy said within hours of her announcement. ''I hope the president will select someone . . . that can bring the nation together as she did.'' Kennedy's description of O'Connor as a ''conservative'' was echoed by Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy, Chris Dodd, Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein -- who will lead any filibuster against O'Connor's successor. O'Connor was not considered a conservative when she was nominated 24 years ago, and the worst fears about her were realized by her consistently liberal positions on social issues. With Democrats now setting a new standard for conservatism, Republican senators could only bite their lips and praise her. Gonzales would not exactly be another O'Connor, but he is still considered a disaster by Republican conservatives. He also is the best Democrats can hope for. The 35 Democratic senators who voted against Gonzales' confirmation as attorney general will not have to turn around to provide enough support to place him on the Supreme Court, because he can be confirmed without their votes. Gonzales trial balloons were shot down on the right, but that has not stopped leaks from the White House. If a Rehnquist vacancy now is thrown into the mix, will Bush be tempted to temporize by naming one conservative and one non-conservative? If he nominates conservative Justice Antonin Scalia as chief justice and thus creates a third confirmation, will he think he has escaped by saying he has named two conservatives? No such maneuvers will make Gonzales acceptable to the Bush base. Consequently, Bush's USA Today interview has been a source of intense anxiety on the right. Typically, the president did not defend Gonzales on his merits but with outrage that anybody would dare criticize his friend. That reflects a general schoolboy attitude that is losing the president support from fellow Republicans and conservatives. The Founding Fathers put the Senate ''advise and consent'' clause into the Constitution partly to combat cronyism. In Federalist No. 76, Alexander Hamilton opposed the president's nominees ''being in some way or other personally allied to him.'' Thus, the wonder in Washington is that a peeved Bush would defend Gonzales' selection on grounds of personal pique. So much is at stake in these Supreme Court nominations that surely the president must realize this situation transcends loyalty to a friend.
With all of the potential vacancies (as many as 4), Bush will make the Court look like it did in 1937.
This is an area where Bush can really shape America's direction for the next 20-30 years. Especially with the O'Connor replacement. Replacing Rehnquist is just going to be conservative for conservative. O'Connor has been a big problem for conservatives.
I think the Republicans are once again running into the problem of being the majority party where there is a danger of overreach, loss of focus on common goals and also infighting. If I was a betting I would put money on Gonzales being on the Supreme Court. GW Bush realizes that he's not going to run again and so might not need to totally kowtow to the evangelicals to get out the vote but he still has a legislative agenda that could be helped if the Dems and moderate Repubs in Congress aren't consistently stalling it. Gonzales has already passed confirmation, is more palatable to the Dems than potentially other candidates and best of all is a friend of George. His nomination is a winner for the Bush Admin on all of those levels versus a protracted fight over someone who the Evangelical right would prefer. On the Dem. side they understand there in a weakened position and that the filibuster victory just forestalled the issue. Its not in their interest to have a major fight just yet when there potentially are more battles ahead. Promoting Gonzales as a compromise candidate keeps someone who is moderate much closer to Kennedy and Souter than Scalia and Thomas and also makes the Repubs look bad as the Evangelicals turn on GW Bush so if not quite a winner its a pretty good deal for Dems..
was just logging on here to post that he may be making an announcement in an hour or so. This is coming from rumblings in the legal community and direct info from a well-connected clerk in the 9th circuit.
http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/ -- Marty Lederman reports that Bob Novak said on CNN that according to his source the Chief will announce his retirement as soon as the President's plane lands this afternoon at 4:15. The Court's press operation has not geared up. But the Justices don't coordinate particularly with the Public Information Office. So it might not be until around 3:45 or so that they learned that something was happening.
and the London attacks are likely to make the "torture memos" issue less of a problem for gonzales in any confirmation fight.
Vacancies on the Supreme Court and the other lifetime Federal benches were the main reason to vote against the extremist, George W. Bush, when he ran for reelection. I said that many times during the campaign. People, good people, chose to vote based on the fear engendered by Bush/Rove and company. Now we will see the "fruits" of their ignorance and short-sightedness. A doubling of the national debt by the time he leaves office and a far-right court not seen since the pre-Warren Court days... courts which allowed "seperate but equal" schools and "Whites Only" restrooms. Our way of life is under direct assault by the right wing cabal that has it's grip on the Republican Party, and too many of you go blissfully on about your business. It will catch up to you, and you won't like what happens. And I will not enjoy being right, damn it. Keep D&D Civil!!
They need to get rid of the supreme court. A bunch of old guys who can't be kicked out is not good for our country. I wonder how many of these guys know that much about the internet and all these new technologies that are coming out. Yet they have a huge impact on the way these things operate.
Basso; Sorry to temporarily derail your thread. Not that you haven't derailed others. But I just noticed your sig.. I don't know about Afghanistan but there certainly were US and Brit troops in, or at least over, Iraq on 9/11 patrolling the no-flyzones. By most accounts even before 9/11 they were engaged in a low grade war already. I also recall hearing that there were US advisors in the Kurdish areas then too.
Come on, everyone enjoys being right And the 'cabal' has both the right wing and the left wing by the throat. Things are just the way they like it.
I've been kind of leery against the weakening of our civil liberties. Strict constitutionalists should make the government smaller and freedoms more pronounced if anything good should come out of this. That is, unless the state of the SCOTUS has become a political hellhole like the other 2 branches.
i don't have link, but drudgereport.com is reporting he's gonzo. they're saying the White House is preparing a press conference announcement.
Hopefully Emilio Garza could replace O'Connor and then Bush can pick a right-winger to replace Rehnquist. That would dramatically shift power to the right, and Garza would be political suicide for the Dems to filibuster.
This could be one of the worst political posts I have ever seen. And when compared to t_j's rantings, that is no mean feat.
