Conservatives are told it will not be Gonzales

[truthpusher]

From the Hill

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/071905/gonzales.html

Conservatives are told it will not be Gonzales
---------------------
By Alexander Bolton
---------------------
White House officials have assured select conservative leaders that they will not nominate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, according to a conservative familiar with the behind-the-scenes discussions.

The message has filtered out to conservative activists that Gonzales, whom many activists believe would be too liberal on abortion and racial preference issues, is no longer a threat to their cause. That could portend a fierce battle in the Senate in September, as Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) has said Gonzales would be a qualified nominee, suggesting that his selection could have achieved bipartisan consensus.

Senior administration officials have told select conservative leaders that President Bush is likely to nominate either Edith Jones or Edith Clement, members of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the conservative source said.

It is also possible that would nominate Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan or former Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, whom the Senate recently confirmed to the 5th Circuit.

complete story: http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/071905/gonzales.html

[slackmaster]

1. Gonzales is pro-choice on abortion

That makes him a non-starter with the far right.

[Vincardog]

5. Gonzales is pro torture that makes him a non-starter for me.

Where the fuck is the opposition to the Radical Right Wing nuts?

[Pepperbelly]

7. Jesus Christ ...

The President nominates and the Senate confirms. They have more votes than we do. He will get a nominee through and you will not like whoever it is. Gonzalez would have been far better than some of those troglodytes.

[Teaser]

12. Give up

some of the circus clowns here don't understand basic math.

[jsamuel]

13. Some of us don't know how the congress works

Can you say filibuster?

I don't think the high court should have someone who actively looked for ways to get around laws so that we could torcher people.

[Teaser]

16. apparently you're one of them

Because there is no way we could sustain a filibuster over a fairly moderate candidate.

You expect to filibuster every candidate Bush throws up? Come back to reality...there is hot cocoa and a cozy bed waiting for you down here.

[Vincardog]

15. The President nominates and the Senate debates investigates and

When appropriate confirms. The Majority does not RULE, In the Senate virtually everything is done by UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Gonzales is 'some of those troglodytes'.
He told aWoL that he could TORTURE people.
IS that all right with you?

[MisterP]

17. AND that he's above the law

[Zhade]

23. THANK you.

It always stuns me to see people dismiss these things about Gonzalez. It says a lot about how fucked this country is.

[MisterP]

27. here's my timeline:

Ted Olson nominated
Dems put up a stink
Gonzales takes on eminent domain to please both complainers and Norquist, who put it at #2 on his list (enables the Endangered Species Act, dont'cha see?--yes, they actually said this)
Olson switched for Gonzales
Religious Right makes a show of putting up a stink
Dems say we're on the "right track" because of this
Gonzales okayed
Rehnquist incapacitated
Chief Justice Long Dong Silver (*: "I'm balanced!")
Olson held up as moderate
Lather, rinse, repeat
Of course, various deranged circuit judges may be substituted, but I won't name names...

[Pepperbelly]

25. Confirmation is done by simple majority.

I do not know where you get your information but I wouldn't get it from that source any more. It does not take unanimous consent to confirm a nominee. It takes a simple majority.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Stranger]

32. Torture is not part of the equation.

If you believe torture is justified, you shouldn't even be able to practice law, much less preside on the highest court in the land.

[Pepperbelly]

35. like I said ...

he's going to appoint someone and we probably aren't going to like it. We cannot sustain a four year fillibuster. The voters won't stand for it.

[vi5]

2. Great, so if it's Owen how do dems fight that...

If she was mainstream enough for them to let her through under their wonderful little bipartisan negotiation, then how the fuck are they going to paint her as the extremist she is when it comes time to vote on her for the SC?

[Vincardog]

6. The bipartisan negotiation guaranteed her an up or down vote

it did not declare her mainstream. We have to stop the FASCIST tendencies of the Radical Right.

[KamaAina]

10. She's not experienced enough

she's still unpacking her boxes at the Circuit Court, for Pete's sake. That has to be the talking point on Owen, or for that matter, Janice "Social Security recipients are blithely cannibalizing their grandchildren" Rogers Brown.

[fortyfeetunder]

22. Experience?

The precedent was set with Clarence Thomas, you think he had any significant judicial experience before his nomination?

Unfortunately, what I fear is going to happen is ideology (to appease the conservative wing of the GOP) will win over experience and capability as a SCOTUS judicial nominee.

Please GWB, prove me wrong!

[depakid]

21. They can't

Despite declaing "victory" Harry Reid and the Dem leadership sold us all out. And wait and see- they'll do again.

[Mz Pip]

3. I think it will be a woman

A reactionary, anti-choice, pro-business, anti-rights of the accused woman. Edith Jones. fits the bill perfectly. :puke:

Oh yeah, she have to be a RW activist. Edith Jones.

Kill me now.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[slackmaster]

8. I think it will be a minority woman

Janice Rogers Brown fits the bill perfectly.

[BillZBubb]

19. I agree, Edith Jones is the perfect fit for Busholini's madness.

Sociopaths of a feather. She's the one I'd bet on.

[LibDemAlways]

4. In order to deflect attention from Rove, it's

sure to be a controversial knuckledragger who will become the focus of a huge nomination battle.

Anything to change the subject.

[Vincardog]

9. Let him tear up his own party. We have time and independent prosecutors

on our side. Burn Baby Burn

[bluestateguy]

11. Gonzalez would only be moderately bad

and because the fundamentalist wackos don't trust him the media would depict him as a "moderate". Throw in the fact that he'd be the first Hispanic nominee, and it would be very hard for 41 Democratic Senators to sustain a filibuster against him.

On the other hand, it is possible, possible I would say, that he could turn out like Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy or Souter. They were all appointed by Republican presidents with the assumption that they would be solid conservatives, and over the years their voting record on the court lurched to the Left (though in varying degrees).

I think the Right wants assurances that that will not happen again, though the price for that could mean an bother Robert Bork: someone with a long paper trail of right wing drivel that could be ripped apart.

[AndyTiedye]

14. If We Had The Senate Then That We Have Now

I think the Right wants assurances that that will not happen again, though the price for that could mean an bother Robert Bork: someone with a long paper trail of right wing drivel that could be ripped apart.

If we had the Senate then that we do now, that would be Mr. Chief Justice Robert Bork by now.

We have only been able to keep the worst of the troglodytes off
even when we had a Senate majority. What have we got now?

[Old Vet]

18. Bush will nominate VERY soon................

It will take the heat off rove, And it will be like the memos. Because in my opinion hes gonna nominate a ultra- conservative, Just like he promised the Religious right.

[Zhade]

24. Yeah, people who help set up a tortue policy and say the prez...

...is above the law are only "moderately bad".

Fuck, what has this country come to, when that kind of thing can be said aloud and not sound insane to some?

[sleipnir]

20. Dan Quayle. I'm dead serious.

He's my "Alex, I'll wager it all" candidate.

Examine this choice quote from the AP:

"I continue to support an amendment to overturn Roe vs. Wade today. Those I select for the most critical positions in government, including my running mate or nominees to the Supreme Court, will share it."

Source: Associated Press Jun 14, 1999

[AlGore-08.com]

28. Except that Dan Quayle is neither female nor a member of a minorty group

One or both of those is essential, so that the GOP can spin any substantive attacks on the nominee's record as a sign of bigotry - - and so in later election cycles, they can use Dem opposition to the nominee as "proof" that the GOP supports women and/or minorities while the Dem party doesn't.

[Demeter]

26. Big Surprise! That's OK, Dems Didn't Want Torture Boy Either!

When 10 million people scream: "No War In IRAQ!" nobody listens.

When $10 million screams "No Gonzales!" the White House is all ears and on its knees begging forgiveness.

Disgusting.

[yurbud]

30. why the hell did Reid say Gonzales would be OK?

He would be an embarrassment at the very least.

That would be like putting Jeffrey Dahmer in charge of the Red Cross.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[belle]

31. Agh. Well, on the sort of bright side (yeah, really reaching here, but)

...one good argument for not wanting Gonzales is that it would mean yet another A.G. gets in as well as the SCOTUS judge, and who the hell knows who he'd pick this time?

[yurbud]

33. David Duke

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[RememberWellstone]

34. No duh.

Unbelievable who he has picked. I guess we're back in the 1950's again. Stupid idiot.