Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-08-2003, 12:54 PM

Lobbying Starts as Groups Foresee Supreme Court Vacancy

Quote:

. . .

"If history is any guide, it is quite likely, given the president's stated preference for justices like Thomas and Scalia, that the next Supreme Court nominee is likely to be an ideological extremist," Wade Henderson, executive director of the leadership conference, said. "In that case, we would hope to generate a debate in the Senate and the country at large over what it means to appoint another justice in that mold."

. . .

Administration officials say that the White House has compiled dossiers on dozens of potential nominees, but that the list of genuine candidates is far smaller, fewer than 10. So far, the discussions have focused on providing possible nominees for different circumstances, depending on who resigns.

In almost all the possibilities, officials said, Mr. Gonzales, the White House counsel and a longtime legal adviser to Mr. Bush, would be a candidate. Mr. Gonzales would be the first Hispanic member of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Bush's top aides, notably Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, are described as well aware that this would provide a political advantage for both him and the Republican Party, which has been aggressively courting Hispanic voters.

But social conservatives, an important component of Mr. Bush's political coalition, have expressed increasing wariness about Mr. Gonzales.

Many say he reminds them of Justice David H. Souter, who was named to the court by President Bush's father, and who they say had been sold to them as a solid conservative vote but turned out otherwise.

Alliance for Justice

Toto · 06-08-2003, 02:29 PM

Eddie Tabash has asked people to write to Justice O'Connor and plead with her not to retire:

Quote:

WRITE TO JUSTICE O'CONNOR: URGE HER TO NOT TO RETIRE

From the standpoint of separation of church and state, Justice O'Connor has been very good. She, unlike, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, has always ruled that no branch of government can favor the believer over the non believer. It was she who said that no branch of government may treat anyone differently, based upon the God or gods they worship or don't worship. If Bush replaces her, it will be a net loss to the separation of church and state.

We must all write to her and ask her to stay on. Remind her that as a centrist, she does not want to allow the Court to tip to the far right by being replaced with a religious right wing extremist. Thank her profusely for what she has done the past 22 years to make sure that we do not have an official religious tyranny in our nation and to make sure that the non believer is not shunted off into second class citizenship.

Write to her at:

HONORABLE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR
Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court Building
1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543

We have to do this soon, as the Court term is just ending, and it is anticipated that she will be making her announcement shortly. These should be letters done the "old fashioned" way, by physical mail.

I don't know what an effective approach would be, or if Supreme Court Justices even read fan mail. O'Connor's husband was quoted IIRC during the endgame of the last election saying that it would be good to have Bush in office so O'Connor could retire and be sure a Republican would be appointed to replace her. Of course, that was before Bush moved so solidly to the right and turned his judicial appointment selections over to Pat Robertson's friends.

Ideas?

beejay · 06-08-2003, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
O'Connor's husband was quoted IIRC during the endgame of the last election saying that it would be good to have Bush in office so O'Connor could retire and be sure a Republican would be appointed to replace her. Of course, that was before Bush moved so solidly to the right and turned his judicial appointment selections over to Pat Robertson's friends.

Ideas?

I hope she looks at the 5-4 votes where she was in the "5" and Rehnquist/Scalia/Thomas were in the "4" and think long and hard about whether the country would be better off if the decision had gone the other way.

SLD · 06-08-2003, 09:38 PM

I argued forcefully in the 2000 elections against Nader to several people in Florida primarily on the point that having Bush pick the next few Supremes would be a disaster. It didn't work. I wonder where those folks are now and I wonder if they are still saying there's no difference between Gore and Bush.

My prediction: Bush will pick someone just to pick a fight. That means a real right winger. So far right he's nuts. He'll probably pick Pickering himself.

SLD

Lynn of the Prairie · 06-09-2003, 11:38 AM

I hope it'll be Gonzales. He's a Souter clone if ever there was one.

Except for accepting some of the goofier religious right religious beliefs, Bush could care less about their agenda. Like his Dad he is not going to give them what they want on this.

What is interesting for now is the Senate fight over Carolyn Kuhl. Traditionally, when both the home state's Senators object to a nomination, it is not confirmed. This is exactly what Boxer & Feinstein of California are doing over Kuhl because she's so extremist. Some Republicans though are talking about breaking that time-honored tradition to push this nomination through. I think nothing will come of it, but it depends on Bill Frist and how bad the President wants this nomination. I think overall it's small potatoes to them and the tradition of Senatorial Courtesy will stand.

hezekiah jones · 06-09-2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Lynn of the Prairie
Except for accepting some of the goofier religious right religious beliefs, Bush could care less about their agenda. Like his Dad he is not going to give them what they want on this.

Huh?

hezekiah jones · 06-09-2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by SLD
I argued forcefully in the 2000 elections against Nader to several people in Florida primarily on the point that having Bush pick the next few Supremes would be a disaster.

So did I. I heard them say "It doesn't matter, Gore voted to confirm Clarence Thomas" so many times I'm nearly convinced it was a deliberate Green Party lie.

Lynn of the Prairie · 06-09-2003, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiah jones
Originally posted by Lynn of the Prairie
Except for accepting some of the goofier religious right religious beliefs, Bush could care less about their agenda. Like his Dad he is not going to give them what they want on this.

Huh?

So, I guess the wording is awkward:

1. Dubya does believe stuff like helping Israel because they're the "chosen people" for instance.

2. The only issue on which he has bowed to the religious right was international family planning. He appointed a gay male career diplomat as Ambassador to Romania. He has not given a strong endorsement to Rick Santorum for his anti-gay remarks.

Toto · 06-09-2003, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lynn of the Prairie
So, I guess the wording is awkward:

1. Dubya does believe stuff like helping Israel because they're the "chosen people" for instance.

2. The only issue on which he has bowed to the religious right was international family planning. He appointed a gay male career diplomat as Ambassador to Romania. He has not given a strong endorsement to Rick Santorum for his anti-gay remarks.

I doubt that W. thinks the Jews are the chosen people. He's more likely to think that they play a part in God's plan for armageddon and the fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy, just as he was chosen by God and I have to stop now before I start screaming.

Bush bowed to the Religious Right when he appointed Ashcroft as Attorney General, then when he eviscerated international family planning. Every judicial appointment so far has been compatible with the relgious right's agenda.

He's tried to walk a tightrope between the religious right and the Log Cabin Republicans in his public statements, but compare one ambassador to Romania (no insult to Romania) with the far right ideology of his judicial appointments. Read this thread for some perspective.

Jewel · 06-09-2003, 03:15 PM

With all the right wing appointments Bush has made during his presidency so far I do not trust him to make a moderate choice for the hightest court in the land.

Although I do not agree with all of Justice O'Connor's rulings, she is generally even handed and she has been very good for church / state seperation. It would be more than a shame for her to be replaced with another Scalia or Rehnquist.

06-09-2003, 11:38 AM	#5
Lynn of the Prairie Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: BROOKLYN (FORMERLY TEXAS) Posts: 1,135	Gonzales, Si! I hope it'll be Gonzales. He's a Souter clone if ever there was one. Except for accepting some of the goofier religious right religious beliefs, Bush could care less about their agenda. Like his Dad he is not going to give them what they want on this. What is interesting for now is the Senate fight over Carolyn Kuhl. Traditionally, when both the home state's Senators object to a nomination, it is not confirmed. This is exactly what Boxer & Feinstein of California are doing over Kuhl because she's so extremist. Some Republicans though are talking about breaking that time-honored tradition to push this nomination through. I think nothing will come of it, but it depends on Bill Frist and how bad the President wants this nomination. I think overall it's small potatoes to them and the tradition of Senatorial Courtesy will stand.

06-09-2003, 02:17 PM	#6
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Re: Gonzales, Si! Originally posted by Lynn of the Prairie Except for accepting some of the goofier religious right religious beliefs, Bush could care less about their agenda. Like his Dad he is not going to give them what they want on this. Huh?

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

06-08-2003, 09:38 PM	#4
SLD Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Birmingham, Alabama Posts: 4,109	I argued forcefully in the 2000 elections against Nader to several people in Florida primarily on the point that having Bush pick the next few Supremes would be a disaster. It didn't work. I wonder where those folks are now and I wonder if they are still saying there's no difference between Gore and Bush. My prediction: Bush will pick someone just to pick a fight. That means a real right winger. So far right he's nuts. He'll probably pick Pickering himself. SLD

06-09-2003, 02:19 PM	#7
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Originally posted by SLD I argued forcefully in the 2000 elections against Nader to several people in Florida primarily on the point that having Bush pick the next few Supremes would be a disaster. So did I. I heard them say "It doesn't matter, Gore voted to confirm Clarence Thomas" so many times I'm nearly convinced it was a deliberate Green Party lie.

06-09-2003, 03:15 PM	#10
Jewel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Northern Virginia, USA Posts: 1,112	With all the right wing appointments Bush has made during his presidency so far I do not trust him to make a moderate choice for the hightest court in the land. Although I do not agree with all of Justice O'Connor's rulings, she is generally even handed and she has been very good for church / state seperation. It would be more than a shame for her to be replaced with another Scalia or Rehnquist.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.