Bush appointing a Supreme Court justice during a WH criminal investigation?

[NNN0LHI]

The Dem's should put a kibosh an any talk of Bush appointing any more lifetime positions such as Supreme Court justices until after the criminal investigation and any pending criminal trials for any current or former White House employees are over with.

Every time any Dem is asked about Bush's choice for the SC they should just start talking about Libby, Rove, Cheney, and Bush, along with the continuing criminal investigation and how this SC stuff should wait until after the investigation is finished up.

It only makes sense doesn't it?

Don

[rodeodance]

1. I heard that maybe 1pm on Monday there is to be a news confer. Wall

to wall coverage.

[ixion]

2. I think that's a great strategy, Don

Let's just hope the right people read it. :-)

[halobeam]

3. The majority of American people do not trust this administration

and we are supposed to forget that, when he nominates someone to the highest court for a lifetime appointment?

This is unacceptable and unfortunately allowed. A few kinks in this system, don't ya think!?!

[Jeanette in FL]

4. I totally agree

That should be the Mantra of the Democratic Party from here on in. No more appointments until this is fiasco is cleared up.

[Im with Rosey]

5. I agree

I have written to my senator(Boxer) about this very topic, I don't bother writing to DiFi anymore, to make certain that at least one person she represents feels that the emperor should barely be allowed to tie his shoes before everything is out in the open and we know exactly what's going on and who made it happen.

[leveymg]

6. I started urging that in July.

No S. Ct. Appn't til Rove/Libby Trial is Over

DailyKos
by leveymg
Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 05:59:02 AM PDT

Karl - If you're reading this: No SCOTUS confirmation until you're in jail with Libby. Here's the deal, and the only one your boss is going to get on the Roberts nomination:


Bush appointees must recuse themselves from cases involving Bush Admin. officials - there is a clear conflict of interest here.


all SCOTUS appointments wait until the Plamegate prosecutions are completed - nobody would have let Richard Nixon appoint a Supreme Court Justice after the Watergate investigation began. This is more serious than Watergate.


That is all - The Real Deal Democrats.

And, here at DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4154846

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Good point. (Sandra Day O'Connor will be 115 before Bush's woes end)

[Zensea]

8. I'm skeptical about that working and not sure it's a good idea

The government should not grind to a halt because of a criminal investigation.
What if Clinton had had the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice while under investigation? Would the same logic still apply?

It is perfectly possible for a tarred president to appoint a legitimate candidate.
The focus should be on the qualifications of the candidate.
From my perspective, trying to enforce that he can't appoint anyone is tilting at windmills and a waste of energy. Although I understand the sentiment, I doubt that Senators would take the suggestion particularly seriously.

That said, obviously anyone Bush appoints should be given extra additional scrutiny.

[NNN0LHI]

9. Would the same logic still apply for Clinton you ask?

Of course it would have. The Republicans would have never allowed it. Do you suspect different??????

Don

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. But they did approve Breyer... and certainly Ginsberg

while there was at least the *whitewater* grand jury running... if memory serves.

It might be different ( and the comparison between Bush and Clinton more instructive) if there were articles of impeachment against Bush right now, but so far only white house aides are actively under investigation.

[rosesaylavee]

14. But how many were implicated in Whitewater?

Not half the staff and key figures in the Senate and House.

This IS different because of the scope IMO.

[Zensea]

15. I know they wouldn't have allowed it, that's not the point

They would have been wrong also.

[NNN0LHI]

18. Fitzgerald Exposed An Ongoing Criminal Enterprise Inside The White House

You don't appear to want to appreciate that fact for some reason? No one knows where this investigation is going to lead? The fourth most powerful person in the White House was indicted Friday in case you missed it? Cheney's name is mentioned 3 times in the indictment. If this goes up just a couple of more people we are talking about Bush himself being involved. Which he probably was.

So common sense would dictate that under these circumstances you would not want someone to have Bush appoint a person to the SC who could very well be making decisions about this investigation in the very near future. Be kind of like you or me appointing one of the persons to be a judge for our own future upcoming trial. Don't you understand that?

Don

[Zensea]

19. I understand it quite well, but no crimes have been proven yet

I appreciate the fact quite well. Don't get me wrong. I think that the Bush administration is a criminal enterprise. I'm old enough (49) to remember Watergate quite well and I think this is much worse. I think Fitzgerald has Libby completely screwed & I hope to see more.

However, I'm also a stickler for the rule of law & I think it is a very dangerous precedent to refuse to consider appointments because of something that has not had a resolution in the judicial system.

I'd like to block Bush from making any further appointments, but I don't think this is the way to go. Impeachment is what I would really like to see, fat chance of that at the moment though.

Hopefully as it wends its way through the judicial system, it will also have an impact on the legislative system and the House will go Democratic next election cycle and there will then be impeachment hearings.

Those two methods (the judiciary and elections) are the correct path in my opinion.

[onenote]

17. but judges were confirmed in the midst of the Clinton investigation

Clinton testified before the GJ in Aug 1998 and the House impeachment effort was in full swing before the end of the year. Yet, from September to December, the Senate confirmed around 25 lifetime federal judicial nominees. Not SCOTUS, but lifetime appointees.

I don't think the argument that, under the circumstances, the Senate should move cautiously on a SCOTUS nomination is frivolous; however, I think that the public will react negatively to attempts to prevent the pres from acting -- it will strike many as short circuiting a process that has yet to formally implicate the pres in this. If/when that happens, then the public would be supportive.

onenote

[NNN0LHI]

20. Might be true if the majority of Americans didn't think Bush was a crook

But the majority of Americans are beginning to realize that he is a crook fortunately. The Dem's need to use that to their advantage. And if they can't do that something is wrong here.

Don

[onenote]

22. i think a majority questions chimpy's competence

But I don't think a majority views him as a criminal (yet). The Democrats need to continue to let these guys hang themselves. Don't start a new fight too early...it'll be a distraction. If there are grounds to filibuster chimpy's supreme court nominee because he is a known wingnut or because he won't provide information, by all means do it. But to announce in advance that nobody chimpy nominates gets a vote would be preamature.

onenote

[rosesaylavee]

10. Recommended...Need one more for Greatest Page

This needs to be viewed widely... any other recommendations out there for this important info??

:kick:

[Lochloosa]

12. Done

[SalmonChantedEvening]

13. Done and done

Any action taken by * from here on out should be given the heaviest scrutiny and opposition possible.

[Festivito]

16. Conspiricy charges would bring question to all his appointees. /nt

[Perky]

21. ANy nominee will have to publically recuse themselves

From any matter regardin Iraq et al... Dems should demand that.

[onenote]

23. why?

If chimpy nominates a federal court judge from the sout, or a state supreme court judge from Wisconsin, why would they have to recuse themselves from anything dealing with iraq?

onenote

[Perky]

24. If there had been no indictment yet I would say no problem

But appointing some one who would then turn around and pass legal judgement on the administration after indictctment would be judicially inappropriate becasue it presents a clear coflict of interest.

I Bush appointed a federal judge to the DC CIrcuit afte the indictemnt and that judge awas randomly selected to here the LIbby case would you not expect him to recuse himself. If for no other reason, it would be gorunds for appeal....the same rule applies with SCOTUS.