Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
01-18-2003, 10:18 AM | #1 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
|
Dubya ready to veer far right on Supreme Court nomination
"Compassionate conservatism" - the new euphemism for stealth rightwing politics.
--- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jan18.html Bush Set For High Court Battle Strategy Is to Nominate Ideological Conservative By Mike Allen and Charles Lane Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, January 19, 2003; Page A01 White House aides have developed a strategy for filling a future vacancy on the Supreme Court that calls for nominating an ideological conservative even if it increases the chance that the person would not be confirmed, administration officials said. [...] Although Bush has pursued a middle course on some issues, this emerging approach to Supreme Court nominations signals the administration's intention to govern largely from the right now that the Senate is back in Republican hands. The strategy is in keeping with the White House's announcement of an economic plan heavy on tax cuts and the renomination of conservative lower court judges previously rejected by Senate Democrats. The Supreme Court strategy also implies that Republican conservatives have gained the upper hand in the internal administration debate over whether the president's political interest lies in rewarding his core supporters or in courting Hispanic voters by naming the first member of that fast-growing voting population to the court. Conservatives are concerned about Gonzales's views on affirmative action and abortion. The right blames him for the administration's initial hesitation to support a challenge at the Supreme Court to the University of Michigan's race-conscious admissions program. And antiabortion groups dislike an opinion he wrote as a Texas Supreme Court justice supporting a teenager's right to have an abortion without telling her parents. |
01-23-2003, 02:39 PM | #2 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: GR, MI USA
Posts: 4,009
|
Well, the shrub made his litmus intentions clear during the pledge controversy. The best we can do is try to block all his nominees for the next 2 years.
|
01-23-2003, 04:01 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Melrose, MA
Posts: 961
|
Well since according to some people on this site there's no difference at all between the GOP and the Democrats I'm sure all of us non-believers have nothing to fear from Bush's right-wing judicial nominees . . . . right?
|
01-24-2003, 06:42 AM | #4 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Middle, Kansas
Posts: 2,637
|
The best way to protect the court is for none of the liberals or moderates to retire. Then get a less conservative pres in the White House in 2 years. If Scalia or Renquist retire and Bushie replaces them with a right winger it will have virtually no impact. Our only fear is exchanging a currently good justice with a bad Bush Nominee.
|
03-13-2003, 11:34 AM | #5 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC, New York
Posts: 114
|
Unfortunately, the oldest Justice on the Supreme Court is John Paul Stevens, argueably the most liberal one (despite being a Republican appointee). He was born in 1920, so he'll be 83 this year.
I see Alberto Gonzalez as a potential David Souter, so if Bush must appoint someone, it should be him. If it turns out he'll nominate Miguel Estrada, watch out. |
03-13-2003, 12:43 PM | #6 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Folding@Home in upstate NY
Posts: 14,394
|
Quote:
Cool smilie! |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|