Opposing a nameless nominee.....pathetic

[Mister Bushice]

can anyone give me the cliff notes on Choads latest attempt at balck eyeing the dems? I'm rather tired of reading the same crap every post.

[BSmack]

can anyone give me the cliff notes on Choads latest attempt at balck eyeing the dems? I'm rather tired of reading the same crap every post.

Sure, he C&Ped a story and then regurgitated the main talking point of said story as his "take".

Same as it ever was.

[DrDetroit]

Das need not even have posted the article.

As we saw last week...within minutes of O'Connor's resignation we saw the left gearing up their attack ads blathering about this pivotal moment in time, women's rights at a crossroads, Bush must nominate a moderate just like O'Connor, blah, blah, blah...

But Das' main point seems to be that he finds it incredible that the left's attack machine has geared up already despite the lack of a nominee(s).

[BSmack]

Das need not even have posted the article.

As we saw last week...within minutes of O'Connor's resignation we saw the left gearing up their attack ads blathering about this pivotal moment in time, women's rights at a crossroads, Bush must nominate a moderate just like O'Connor, blah, blah, blah...

But Das' main point seems to be that he finds it incredible that the left's attack machine has geared up already despite the lack of a nominee(s).

How sad is it when O'Connor is considered a "moderate" voice?

:roll:

BTW: I see the "right" has mounted a premptive attack on Alberto "I Love Torture" Gonzalez.

KYOA much?

[At Large]

Hate to echo here, but I read two articles (NYT and WSJ) about the conservative groups "warning" President Bush to not nominate Gonzalez because he's not an utra-conservative enough for their tastes. By the way, this is exactly the opposite behavior predicted by Rush on Tuesday, who then had to backtrack and blame the liberal media for making a big deal about it.

Rush on Tuesday in his prediction said that the Supreme Court it the left's God and will be frantic over who's picked for it.

[DrDetroit]

1) Gonzales' name has been floated for a while as a possible appointment to the USSC. I see a difference between the campaigning by some conservatives pressuring Bush to avoid nominating Gonzales, the Left has come unhinged again as they attempt to frame the nomination issue.

2) B, it is sad that O'Connor is being touted as a "moderate."

3) The torture angle on Gonzales just doesn't work. It's a vacuous argument run by the left simply to attack the administration. You guys lost that argument big once Americans understood that your definition of torture were customized religious menus, hours of exercise, varying room temperatures, sleep deprivation, etc.

[Bizzarofelice]

How sad is it when O'Connor is considered a "moderate" voice?

Damned Goldwater Republicans just don't obsess enough for the current Republican party.

[See You Next Wednesday]

Hate to echo here, but I read two articles (NYT and WSJ) about the conservative groups "warning" President Bush to not nominate Gonzalez because he's not an utra-conservative enough for their tastes. By the way, this is exactly the opposite behavior predicted by Rush on Tuesday, who then had to backtrack and blame the liberal media for making a big deal about it.

Rush on Tuesday in his prediction said that the Supreme Court it the left's God and will be frantic over who's picked for it.

People still listen to Rush Limbaugh?

[Diogenes]

If the dems pick someone along the lines of Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman and The GOP chooses McCain.....



We'll be living in an alternate universe.

Here in the real world...

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

[ChargerMike]

Das need not even have posted the article.

As we saw last week...within minutes of O'Connor's resignation we saw the left gearing up their attack ads blathering about this pivotal moment in time, women's rights at a crossroads, Bush must nominate a moderate just like O'Connor, blah, blah, blah...

But Das' main point seems to be that he finds it incredible that the left's attack machine has geared up already despite the lack of a nominee(s).

How sad is it when O'Connor is considered a "moderate" voice?

:roll:

BTW: I see the "right" has mounted a premptive attack on Alberto "I Love Torture" Gonzalez.

KYOA much?

Yes, and how ludicrous it is when Anthony Kennedy is considered a "Conservative"


BTW..Link?

[At Large]

So, Das, are you going to vote for whoever the Democrats decide to run in 2008?

Don't know who the nominee is..............

How is it that anybody can take the Democratic Party seriously when they are already PLANNING to oppose a nominee that hasn't been named?

How can Chuck Schumer, or anyone else in the party make an objective decision when we don't even have a nominee named yet?

Insert cricket sound here.

Links to news articles about conservatives opposing Gonzalez....

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... nterview_3

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nation ... ationworld


There's a story in the WSJ journal this week. I'd link it, but you need to be a member. I read the hard copy. I can send it to you if you'd like...

[DrDetroit]

Again At-large...

There is a difference between conservatives airing their objective and reasonable objections to a Gonzales nomination and the unhinged left spewing rhetorical nukes.

In fact, it was a "senior administration official" lastweek that cited the attractiveness of a Gonzales nomination -
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... i-news-hed


So what we have are reasonable and objective arguments against a Gonzales nomination versus declarations from the Left that Bush cannot be allowed to nominate an extremist, that women's rights are in danger, etc.

So, At-large...please explain the equivalency between the behavior by conservatives and liberals re: judicial nominations to replace O'Connor.

TIA.

[At Large]

I guess that's where you and I differ. You see black and white. I see a gray area here. I see the left rallying to protest a potential candidate and I see the right rallying by warning the president and emailing their members on why certain candidates like Gonzalez aren't good because they're not "family friendly."

I really wish I could post the Wall Street Journal article on this subject because it did an excellent job of detailing the interest groups on both sides rallying to this new cause. I'll see if I still have it at work and try to scan it in.

It's not my fault you righties with your blinders on are just as bad as the lefties when it comes to seeing whatever you want to see in any news article.

I love your spin though. "Objective and reasonable objections" (Objective objections?) compared to "unhinged left spewing rhetorical nukes." Nice... :wink:

Speaking of rhetoric, check out Bob Novak's column on June 27th, a full week before O'Connor stepped down. No one had stepped down and he's already decrying Gonzalez! How is this "Objective... objections"?

Bob Novak says No

Another Novak article...

Newsmax article

[Diogenes]

There's a story in the WSJ journal this week. I'd link it, but you need to be a member. I read the hard copy. I can send it to you if you'd like...

Is it this one?


After O'Connor
President Bush owes his supporters a nominee in the Scalia-Thomas mold.

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

When President Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor for the Supreme Court in 1981, former Texas Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, a Democrat, declared, "I don't know the lady, but if she's a good lawyer and believes in the Constitution, she'll be all right."

And so Justice O'Connor was confirmed unanimously as the 102nd Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and the first woman to sit on the highest court in the land. Twenty-four years later, her retirement has set the judicial-appointment process in motion again for the first time in 11 years. On Friday President Bush called for a "dignified" confirmation process, meaning no repeat of the attempts to annihilate Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. By way of contrast, Barbara Jordan's comment seems like a relic of a more gracious past.

Hours after Justice O'Connor's announcement, MoveOn.org was predicting a nominee who is "an extremist who will undermine the rights of individuals and families." Ted Kennedy was already ratcheting up his end-of-days rhetoric. Mr. Bush shouldn't let these threats deter him from choosing someone who will move the Court in the direction that voters have endorsed in two Presidential elections in a row.

Justice O'Connor is being hailed as the Court's "swing" Justice, but her legacy is more complicated. She has been a conservative on property rights and federalism, most recently in her Kelo dissent, where she took vigorous issue with the Court's extension of government's eminent domain power to include the taking of private property for private economic development. Replacing her with a "moderate" could actually mean a more liberal court on those issues.
Where she drifted left over the years--and where her written opinions often sowed confusion--was on social issues, notably church-state and racial matters. She focused more on the facts of a particular case than on determining bright-line rules that citizens could understand and legislatures could follow in the future. Before the Ten Commandments decision came down last month, Beltway wags joked that Justice O'Connor would find five of the 10 unconstitutional.

Her muddled 2003 rulings on racial preferences at the University of Michigan is a case in point. On one hand, she found a "compelling governmental interest" in ensuring diversity, but she also expressed the hope that 25 years hence it would no longer be needed. Even here, however, she opposed the most blatant race-based schemes, which would put her to the right of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, judging from what we know about his role in influencing the government brief in the Michigan cases.

She also moved left on abortion over the years, but her departure does not put Roe v. Wade in jeopardy, notwithstanding claims on the left. Justice O'Connor provided the fifth vote in Casey, reaffirming Roe and a woman's right to abortion, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg has since joined the Court as the sixth vote in favor of Roe. On the other hand, the Carhart partial-birth abortion case--a 5-4 decision overturning Nebraska's ban--could well be overturned. But then two-thirds of Americans support laws banning that procedure, and it is the Court's extremism that has blocked just about any regulation of abortion even up to the time of birth.

Mr. Bush has had five years to evaluate possible nominees to the Supreme Court and there are many highly qualified candidates--male and female, on the appeals courts and elsewhere. Liberals who are demanding that he replace Justice O'Connor with a non-conservative are ignoring the recent history of Supreme Court nominations. When President Clinton named liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg to replace Byron White, who had voted against Roe, Republicans didn't object even though that clearly moved the Court to the left on abortion and most other issues.
Mr. Bush has often said he'd like to appoint a Hispanic to the Court, and there are several fine candidates, including Miguel Estrada, whose nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was filibustered during Mr. Bush's first Administration. As a war President, Mr. Bush will also want someone who has a healthy respect for executive power in fighting terrorism--such as the Fourth Circuit's J. Harvie Wilkinson. This argues against Mr. Gonzales who, as former White House counsel and now head of the Justice Department, would have to recuse himself from most if not all of the war-on-terror cases. A series of 4-4 rulings would be bad for the country on what promises to be a fundamental legal debate in the coming years and could be a matter of national survival.

Any nominee will provide a test of the recent Senate deal barring a filibuster except in "extraordinary circumstances." If words mean anything, they ought to allow a filibuster only in the case of something truly unusual, such as an ethical scandal. They shouldn't include judicial philosophy, although the left is already trying to re-define them that way. The only time the filibuster has been used against a Supreme Court nominee was LBJ's choice of Abe Fortas, who faced corruption charges, and even then it was used mainly to gauge Senate support.

Justice O'Connor served 24 terms, and the average tenure for recent Justices is 19.5 years, or five Presidential terms, so the stakes are enormous. For liberals, the courts have become the preferred way to win policy victories now that Americans are consistently rejecting their agenda at the ballot box. Unlike Barbara Jordan and her colleagues 25 years ago, modern liberals are unlikely to be satisfied with a nominee who is a "good lawyer and believes in the Constitution."

But the only way to stop "borking" as a political strategy is to defy and defeat it. Mr. Bush told voters in 2000 and 2004 that he would nominate Justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. He owes it to the country, and his most loyal supporters, to keep that promise.

[Diogenes]

BTW, one excellent reason not to put Gonzoles on the bench (actually the only really valid reason I've heard)...

. As a war President, Mr. Bush will also want someone who has a healthy respect for executive power in fighting terrorism--such as the Fourth Circuit's J. Harvie Wilkinson. This argues against Mr. Gonzales who, as former White House counsel and now head of the Justice Department, would have to recuse himself from most if not all of the war-on-terror cases. A series of 4-4 rulings would be bad for the country on what promises to be a fundamental legal debate in the coming years and could be a matter of national survival.

[DrDetroit]

I guess that's where you and I differ. You see black and white. I see a gray area here. I see the left rallying to protest a potential candidate and I see the right rallying by warning the president and emailing their members on why certain candidates like Gonzalez aren't good because they're not "family friendly."

I really wish I could post the Wall Street Journal article on this subject because it did an excellent job of detailing the interest groups on both sides rallying to this new cause. I'll see if I still have it at work and try to scan it in.

It's not my fault you righties with your blinders on are just as bad as the lefties when it comes to seeing whatever you want to see in any news article.

I love your spin though. "Objective and reasonable objections" (Objective objections?) compared to "unhinged left spewing rhetorical nukes." Nice... :wink:

Speaking of rhetoric, check out Bob Novak's column on June 27th, a full week before O'Connor stepped down. No one had stepped down and he's already decrying Gonzalez! How is this "Objective... objections"?

Bob Novak says No

Another Novak article...

Newsmax article

Why are you moving the goal posts?

It's not a point or questions re: why certain candidates like Gonzalez aren't good.

The criticism from the right is not about "certain candidates." It's about Gonzales, specifically. Hence, it's not about two groups generally opposing something but one group opposing one potential nominee specifically and another group attempting to unreasonable frame the debate.

And many of the arguments opposing Gonzales are "objective" and not "subjective." For example, in his role as AG, Gonzales has had a hand in many cases that are probably going to end up before the USSC, hence, he'd have to recuse himself. That's an objective argument whereas shit like, "Women's rights are threatened" is completely subjective and unreasonable.