Gonzales watch
by Derek W. on September 17th, 2005
World Magazine Blog has the following update on the current Supreme Court situation:
With John Roberts on the fast track toward confirmation, speculation now turns to Supreme opening #2. Robert Novak reports that “Republican Senate strategists believe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is the only possible Bush nominee to replace O’Connor who would not face a filibuster.” The nomination of Gonzales, though, would break the levee of conservative Bush support.
11 Comments
David Ketter
September 17th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
I can’t recall what was wrong with Gonzales…what exactly was it?
Derek W.
September 17th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
From an article on the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor in issue 13 of Virtue:
The controversy surrounding Gonzales and his effort to find a legal basis for the use of torture in interrogations should be the least of conservatives’ worries. Gonzales is the man, after all, who sided with the majority of the Texas Supreme Court in granting a “judicial bypass” allowing a 17-year-old girl to obtain an abortion without parental consent. He shaped the Bush administration’s affirmative action stance in the 2003 Grutter and Gratz cases, “arguing that public universities may use racial quotas to guarantee diversity.” He also referred to illegal immigrants as “undocumented aliens but otherwise lawful citizens” at a confirmation hearing (The American Conservative, July 18, 2005, p. 18).
SecDef
September 17th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
David, Gonzalez isn’t exactly pro-life. :) He’s basically a moderate Republican (like Nixon/Bush I), not a conservative (like Reagan). Hopefully President Bush will nominate a Conservative who will be fillibustered by the Democrats, who will them lose seats in 2006. :D
Sam Ashwood
September 17th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
If Bush appoints Gonzalez, it should finally destroy any inklings anyone has left that the president is a conservative. Although, personally, I can’t hardly imagine it the way things stand now…
SecDef
September 18th, 2005 at 1:48 am
“If” is the key word. Who had heard of Roberts before President Bush appointed him? Everyone thought it would be Gonzalez, then a woman/minority. We got neither. :)
Sam Ashwood
September 18th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
Well, I’m not too impressed with Roberts, either. He’s come out and said how he believes in a “living Constitution” (tip-off that there’s something wrong with him), besides his waffling on the abortion issue. I’m hoping Bush won’t appoint Gonzalez, but even if he doesn’t, I’m not convinced he’ll appoint someone a whole lot better.
David Ketter
September 18th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
Thanks for the info on Gonzales…understood now…
Well, I’m not too impressed with Roberts, either. He’s come out and said how he believes in a “living Constitution” (tip-off that there’s something wrong with him), besides his waffling on the abortion issue. I’m hoping Bush won’t appoint Gonzalez, but even if he doesn’t, I’m not convinced he’ll appoint someone a whole lot better.
He’s hasn’t said anything against the traditional conservative point of view in regards to government, the Constitution, or rights. As for a living Constitution, it is a living document because it CAN be modified to suit the needs of the country. That doesn’t mean it has to be modified with every wave of social change.
SecDef
September 18th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
Roberts had not come out on anything. Look at what he says very carefully. For example, he said that Roe vs. Wade is established precedent, and that he would give serious consideration to it in any future cases (Note: Serious consideration, not allegience). He then went on to say that precedent can be overturned, but refused to state whether or not he considered Roe to be one that could be overturned. So…he didn’t really come out clear (although it sounds like he may be leaning towards the pro-life side).
Derek W.
September 18th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
I would venture that it seems that Roberts would probably be on the right side of Roe v. Wade, but it also seems clear that he is not a traditional conservative or constructionist in the mold of Scalia, Rehnquist or Thomas:
http://blog.virtuemag.org/2005/09/15/fooling-the-left-or-fooling-ourselves-part-ii/
Sam Ashwood
September 19th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
By “living document,” Roberts was not referring to “modifying” the Constitution. Obviously, this can only be done by amendment, which is outside the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. The concept of a “living Constitution” is something that has been used almost from the beginning of our country to twist the Constitution away from the intentions of the Founders. That is the standard Roberts was accepting.
tgage
September 21st, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Bush has two options:
1) Pander to the Dems and nominate Gonzales while at the same time throwing the entire conservative movement into an upheavel. One of his favorite campagain promises was that he would nominate justices in the mold of Scalia or Thomas.
2) Nominate a conservative ala Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owens. This will please the conservatives, and put the Dems in a tight spot. Why? The vast majority of Americans would support such a nomination, AND with half the Senate either running for re-election in ‘06/’08 or running for the Presidency, they don’t want angry constituents.