hezekiah jones

Okay I guess I misunderstood. I thought you meant Bush wasn't going to throw a bone to the Religious Reich with his potential Supreme Court nominee(s). I would have disagreed strongly. This gang learned a hard lesson with Justice Souter.

I would say Gonzales is a safe bet: pure affirmative action, but a safe bet nonetheless.

{fix spelling - Toto}

Toto

Yes, I remember being told that Bush's appointments to the Texas Supreme Court were surprisingly moderate, so there was nothing to worry about.

And of course, Thomas lied to the Committee on the Judiciary when they were considering his appointment. There were some people who thought Thomas would turn out to be a liberal.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Toto
Yes, I remember being told that Bush's appointments to the Texas Supreme Court were surprisingly moderate, so there was nothing to worry about.

Haha - Green Party Bush apologists. "Where are they now?" is right.

Edward Tabash

Given the extreme nature of the nominees Bush is trying to put on the Federal Courts of Appeal, there is no question that he will attempt to replace O'Connor with a religious right wing judge.

As far back as 1985, in Wallace v. Jaffree, O'Connor disagreed with Rehnquist in the latter's assertion that government could promote religion. O'Connor has always said that the non believer cannot suffer the slightest absence of full equality before the law with belivers. So we must urge her to stay on

Eddie Tabash

Lynn of the Prairie

I haven't seen the roster but it was close, 52-48. I think among Democrats John Breaux, Zell Miller, and Bob Kerrey were the only ones to vote to confirm. However, it was feasible Gore did, given he was from a Southern State with a significant African-American population and Blacks were viewing the thing as a "puttin' down the Black Man" kind of deal (worngly, I believe, but that was the perception).

{edited to fix tag - Toto}

Toto

Bush v. Gore showed that O'Connor was a Republican first, and a conscientious and honest jurist second. What kind of arguments would persuade her that she should sacrifice her own comfort to keep working for the benefit of a bunch of liberals?

I mean, we really do want her to stay, given the alternative. But what reason can we give that she would not just dismiss?

Should we pretend to be liberal Republicans worried about the future of the Party?

hezekiah jones

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 102nd Congress - 1st Session - Vote #220

Stephen Maturin

Yep, I agree entirely. Gonzales is eminently confirmable, but he just isn't crazy enough for the powers that be. The administration has yet to show anything that even remotely resembles political restraint since the midterm elections, and there isn't much reason to believe that things will be any different with respect to Supreme Court nominees. Here's hoping that any nominee is so totally insane that the choice generates a big fat political backlash.

fromtheright

I nominate Michael McConnell.

My prediction, SLD, is that he will unfortunately pick a milquetoast like Kennedy or Souter as a sop to Democrats, to avoid a nomination fight.

Lynn of the Prairie

Thanks. I had some errors in my recollection.

First, Gore voted AGAINST Thomas. So did Bob Kerrey.

Zell Miller wasn't in the Senate yet then. Both Senators from Georgia voted yea as did several other Southern Democrats and Dennis DeConcini of Arizona and Alan Dixon of Illinois, and several liberal Republicans voted against.

Well, I haven't thought much of the Greens, but this tears it. i won't vote for a Green for dogcatcher after this.