Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-27-2002, 03:24 PM

Aides weigh Supreme Court picks (requires free registration)

Alberto R. Gonzales, White House counsel and longtime legal adviser to Mr. Bush from Texas, heads the short list.

Quote:

Some conservatives are wary of Mr. Gonzales, unsure if he is sufficiently faithful to their views. They have been deeply disappointed by the performance of Justice Souter on the court after they had been assured he would be to their liking. "No more Souters" became a rallying cry, meaning no support for anyone whose views were uncertain.

These conservatives have suggested to administration officials that they would prefer that Mr. Bush abstain from putting Mr. Gonzales on the court now and wait for a later vacancy, which he could fill with Miguel Estrada who would by then have some judicial experience. Mr. Estrada, a Washington lawyer and reliable conservative, is expected to soon be confirmed to a seat on the federal appeals court in Washington.

In his most publicized ruling as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, Mr. Gonzales charged that some conservative colleagues were engaging in "judicial activism" when they wanted to enforce a more rigid reading of a statute requiring minor girls to inform their parents before receiving an abortion.

I was surprised that Janice Rogers Brown is being mentioned. She is a young, black, conservative who was portrayed in this LA times article as immature and overly political.

GaryP · 12-27-2002, 03:40 PM

The title of your thread is scary enough! Do you have to give us details?

Toto · 12-27-2002, 03:44 PM

Independent Judiciary site

is a source for information on appointments to the federal bench, including a report on Miquel Estrada. While he has no published stance on church state separation, this is troubling:

Quote:

. . .

In defending the Chicago ordinance, Mr. Estrada offered an astonishing insight into his views of judicial review and the role of the courts that might be cause for bemusement if he were a right-wing academic making his case in a law journal, but are alarming given his aspirations to the federal appellate bench. Mr. Estrada seemed to take the position that the federal judiciary should offer no check on the actions of a democratically-elected legislative body. . .

. . .

The law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher represented George W. Bush and Richard Cheney in the case of Bush v. Gore, which decided the 2000 presidential election. Mr. Estrada is listed as one of the attorneys for Bush and Cheney in the briefs and purportedly played a significant role in the case, yet nowhere mentions his involvement in this case in his responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire filled out by all judicial nominees. While answers he gives in his questionnaire may not be incorrect as a legal matter, his failure to acknowledge his role in a case that may well be considered one of the most important � and controversial � in this country�s history is disturbing.

copernicus · 12-27-2002, 06:40 PM

This is certainly the most interesting issue for the next two years. Bush wants to pack the Supreme Court as badly as FDR did. It looks like he may be even more successful. Perhaps a rigidly right-wing Supreme Court is what the country needs to snap it out of its love affair with conservative politicians.

GaryP · 12-28-2002, 01:34 PM

Why didn't Al Gore's campaign do a better job of pointing out that Bush had said that Scalia & Thomas would be his prototypes for judicial appointments?

Coudn't they have dug up some quotes and cases these guys have published opinions on and made more of an issue for more moderation on the Court?

It would have at least fired up the liberal base of the Deomocratic Party.

And in general, why don't voters give more weight to what kind of judges a president is likely to appoint? After all, this is a lifetime job!

12-28-2002, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Why didn't Al Gore's campaign do a better job of pointing out that Bush had said that Scalia & Thomas would be his prototypes for judicial appointments?

Gore mentioned Bush's fondness for Scalia and Thomas several times during the debates. But unfortunately most Americans can't even find Iraq on a globe, and after all, Bush is a "nice guy" who sounds like a "real" American. And that's why he was "elected" president.

GaryP · 12-28-2002, 03:12 PM

I agree A_I_F.

But if I were running that campaign, I would have made at least a few TV spots and made sure they aired a few times in the states that were up for grabs.

I think it could have been a deciding factor in FL or even OH.

fromtheright · 12-28-2002, 03:13 PM

Let me put in my vote for Michael W. McConnell--and more Scalia's and Thomases.

12-28-2002, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Let me put in my vote for Michael W. McConnell--and more Scalia's and Thomases.

Yes! Let's ban abortion, even in cases of rape and incest!

Let's teach biblical creationism in public school science classes!

Let's make it legal for felons to own machine guns and rocket launchers!

Let's put the ten commandments on every public building!

Let's put those dirty faggots and dykes back in the closet where they belong!

Let's send those uppity blacks back to the ghetto where they belong!

I can hardly wait!

hezekiah jones · 12-28-2002, 03:45 PM

fromtheright :
"... more Scalias and Thomases."

Scalia I can understand, but Thomas? Thomas is a nonentity. I don't understand how anyone can favor such a mediocrity on the Supreme Court, of all places, regardless of ideology.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-27-2002, 03:40 PM	#2
GaryP Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lancaster, OH Posts: 1,792	The title of your thread is scary enough! Do you have to give us details?

12-27-2002, 06:40 PM	#4
copernicus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Bellevue, WA Posts: 1,531	This is certainly the most interesting issue for the next two years. Bush wants to pack the Supreme Court as badly as FDR did. It looks like he may be even more successful. Perhaps a rigidly right-wing Supreme Court is what the country needs to snap it out of its love affair with conservative politicians.

12-28-2002, 01:34 PM	#5
GaryP Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lancaster, OH Posts: 1,792	Why didn't Al Gore's campaign do a better job of pointing out that Bush had said that Scalia & Thomas would be his prototypes for judicial appointments? Coudn't they have dug up some quotes and cases these guys have published opinions on and made more of an issue for more moderation on the Court? It would have at least fired up the liberal base of the Deomocratic Party. And in general, why don't voters give more weight to what kind of judges a president is likely to appoint? After all, this is a lifetime job!

12-28-2002, 03:12 PM	#7
GaryP Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lancaster, OH Posts: 1,792	I agree A_I_F. But if I were running that campaign, I would have made at least a few TV spots and made sure they aired a few times in the states that were up for grabs. I think it could have been a deciding factor in FL or even OH.

12-28-2002, 03:13 PM	#8
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	Let me put in my vote for Michael W. McConnell--and more Scalia's and Thomases.

12-28-2002, 03:45 PM	#10
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	fromtheright : "... more Scalias and Thomases." Scalia I can understand, but Thomas? Thomas is a nonentity. I don't understand how anyone can favor such a mediocrity on the Supreme Court, of all places, regardless of ideology.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.