Bush to announce new supreme court justice

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush is close to a decision on his first nominee to the Supreme Court and could make his announcement as early as Tuesday, Republican sources said.

The sources said Bush is leaning toward picking a woman to fill the vacancy left by retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

A leading candidate is Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, the Republican said.

In a sign an announcement may be near, Bush met Monday night with Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, who as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee would oversee the confirmation process.

Sources said the timing of an announcement had been moved up in part to deflect attention away from a CIA leak controversy that has engulfed Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove.

A Republican strategist with close to the White House described Clement as the leading candidate. "She's pretty untouchable," he said. "Plus, it helps take Rove off the front pages for a week."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050719/ts_nm/bush_court_dc_11

Sounds like they've moved up the supreme court justice decision to "change the subject" regarding Rove.
 
What's interesting is this: Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, Clement also has eased fears among abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top11jul19,0,706290.story

So unless had a "talk" with Clement, it seems odd that he'd nominate someone who isn't willing to destroy Roe v. Wade.
 
I just had an email that he's making the announcement tonight at 9. A prime time news conference for a SC nominee?!? They really are trying hard to bump Rove off the front pages.
 
Rove? Who's that?

Y'know, this is a real big matter itself. Everyone was ready to make a big stink about it anyway.
 
I've heard the word "Litmus Test" more in the past year than I have in my entire life.

Any bets on how that "not using a Litmus Test" pans out?
 
So is Bush trying to get a PH of 7, a neutral? Or is the litmus test to get something like a 1 which is Battery Acid?
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']What's interesting is this: Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, Clement also has eased fears among abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard."
[/QUOTE]

Good. A conservative with some sense.
 
Will the religious right turn on the Bush administration if they don't nominate someone who's more hostile towards abortion? Will there be some political damage? Some of those pro-life guys are lunatics, too. Will there be any physical harm towards public figures? They've been waiting decades for this moment. I don't see them just sitting back and doing nothing.
 
I read an op-ed piece by a former Clinton advisor who seems to think that this nomination will break Bush and garauntee a Democrat for the next president. His opinion is that if the nominee isn't radicaly anti-abortion he'll realy upset the radical right, who feels he owes them. If he does nominate someone who is radicaly anti-abortion he will lose the women's vote. Now take this with however many grains of salt as you wish, as this is coming from a former Clinton advisor, I just thought it was an interesting point.
 
[quote name='peteloaf']I read an op-ed piece by a former Clinton advisor who seems to think that this nomination will break Bush and garauntee a Democrat for the next president. His opinion is that if the nominee isn't radicaly anti-abortion he'll realy upset the radical right, who feels he owes them. If he does nominate someone who is radicaly anti-abortion he will lose the women's vote. Now take this with however many grains of salt as you wish, as this is coming from a former Clinton advisor, I just thought it was an interesting point.[/QUOTE]

Well, I've heard this line of thinking before, and I feel that, while some of it makes sense (the religious voters feel that Bush is indebted to them), it also relies upon a totally illogical assumption. That assumption is that religious voters will leave the Republican party for the Democratic party, which is just beyond silly to consider, IMO. It is possible that they might not vote at all as a means of hurting the Republicans, but I don't buy that either. I think that people on the right side of the political spectrum are as much "anti" left wing ideologies as as the people they point to (Democrats) as being against so many things, yet proffering nothing.

The religious voters aren't going anywhere, and the Republicans would be far better off (i.e., more moderate in order to appeal to those voters who would or have left) recognizing that.
 
You guys DO realize the Supreme Court handles cases OTHER than Roe vs. Wade right?

The nominee doesn't have to be the one that is radically pro or anti-abortion, just able to be manipulated by the nominee for Reinquist's spot to vote against abortion.

Or hell, abortion could be the new red herring. Patriot Act anyone? I mean you are all looking at one issue while another goes right over your heads.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, I've heard this line of thinking before, and I feel that, while some of it makes sense (the religious voters feel that Bush is indebted to them), it also relies upon a totally illogical assumption. That assumption is that religious voters will leave the Republican party for the Democratic party, which is just beyond silly to consider, IMO. It is possible that they might not vote at all as a means of hurting the Republicans, but I don't buy that either. I think that people on the right side of the political spectrum are as much "anti" left wing ideologies as as the people they point to (Democrats) as being against so many things, yet proffering nothing.

The religious voters aren't going anywhere, and the Republicans would be far better off (i.e., more moderate in order to appeal to those voters who would or have left) recognizing that.[/QUOTE]

However, Bush used gay marriage and "morals" to drive people who wouldn't normally vote to the polling booths last election. Should he choose pro-abortion judge, those people will be less likely to vote again.
 
As I said, some of them may simply not vote (it's absurd to think they'd vote Democrat out of sheer vindictiveness). I simply don't think it is that remarkable a group. They helped put him over the top in an election that shouldn't have been close for the incumbent. In any other election, I think they'd be irrelevant.
 
[quote name='vienge']You guys DO realize the Supreme Court handles cases OTHER than Roe vs. Wade right?

The nominee doesn't have to be the one that is radically pro or anti-abortion, just able to be manipulated by the nominee for Reinquist's spot to vote against abortion.

Or hell, abortion could be the new red herring. Patriot Act anyone? I mean you are all looking at one issue while another goes right over your heads.[/QUOTE]

But what other forseeable decisions is as important?
 
It definitely looks as though they're moving up the SC pick in order to distract at least some attention away from Rove (at this point, I doubt they'll be able to do so entirely.) I would be absolutely stunned if Bush picked anyone but a complete wingnut. The only real questions that I think are open are how bad of a wingnut, and exactly which wingnut it'll be.

[quote name='E-Z-B']What's interesting is this: Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, Clement also has eased fears among abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard." [/QUOTE]
I don't really know if I see this as painting her as pro-choice. Think about it: all she really said was that the SC had decided people have a right to privacy, and that includes abortion. Her following statement could easily be 'They were wrong, and I intend to fix that.'

I never really got the extreme right's opposition to Gonzales, either. The most pro-choice statement that I've ever heard from him was that abortion is legal under the current laws. That's just a simple statement of reality - any other statement would move him purely into the realm of fantasy. Another simple basic statement of reality is that laws can and do change. Whether or not Gonzales would support a move to make abortion illegal isn't something that I've seen clearly answered.

Same sort of thing with this possible canidate: this statement shouldn't alleviate the fears of the pro-choice - its nothing more than a statement about the current reality. Though the fact that the canidate is capable of perceiving reality is a nice change of pace for the Bush administration, it doesn't answer any questions as to what the canidate thinks reality should be, or what they intend to do to change reality once they're in a position of power.
 
It is looking more and more like it will NOT be Judge Clement. It is more likely to be Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit. She is more conservative than Clement, so expect sighs of relief from conservatives and a much more bitter confirmation battle.

I am still holding out (slim) hopes for Judge Roberts.
 
I don't know much about him, but I think I'm gonna hate him. First I heard about his letter (or speech, can't remember) in opposition to abortion in the early 90's. Then just stumbled along a bbc article with a brief outline of his histories (it was outlining the major candidates):

John G Roberts, 50, an appeals court judge for the DC circuit, graduated with top honours from Harvard College. He worked as a clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist before serving in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the current president's father.

In government and in private practice, he went on to earn a reputation as one of the best lawyers to argue before the Supreme Court.

Conservatives will be pleased by his record on abortion, the environment, and church-state issues.

He has argued that religious ceremonies could be part of high-school graduations, a stance the Supreme Court rejected by a vote of 5-4 in 1992.

He was more successful in arguing that government-funded doctors and clinics could not talk to patients about abortion. He has also taken stances against affirmative action.

George W Bush nominated him for his current position in 2003.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4642275.stm

I haven't seen much, but so far this looks bad. I hope they have something to attack him with, though I think one of the appeals of him was there wasn't much to attack him on.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I don't know much about him, but I think I'm gonna hate him. First I heard about his letter (or speech, can't remember) in opposition to abortion in the early 90's. Then just stumbled along a bbc article with a brief outline of his histories (it was outlining the major candidates):



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4642275.stm

I haven't seen much, but so far this looks bad. I hope they have something to attack him with, though I think one of the appeals of him was there wasn't much to attack him on.[/QUOTE]

Personally I'm pleased, the more lunies in the supreme court the sooner the president will loose the power to place them there.
 
Here's the problem with this guy though. PAD will disagree with me on this but I'm completely RIGHT in what I'm about to say. Conservatives argue that it isn't fair in jobs with Affirmative Action. Since WHEN has shit been fair in education for Whites and Blacks in low economic standing, see in public school in the city. So the next time Conservatives argue against AA and use MLK's speech in justification know they don't have ONE fucking leg to stand on except against Middle class and upper Blacks.
Truth be told educational funding needs to be fixed THEN they can start to argue that point.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Here's the problem with this guy though. PAD will disagree with me on this but I'm completely RIGHT in what I'm about to say.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with your silly assertion of complete rightness.
 
Well, barring any information that I haven't heard reported on yet, Roberts isn't nearly as bad of a canidate as I would have bet on. He has a slight obsession with Roe V. Wade, to the point of regularly making references to it in completely unrelated cases, but is still probably the best that can be hoped for from Bush.Slightly disappointing, in a way.

Pondering how best for the Democrats to use the current situation, I think the most productive course would be to polite and civil, and speed things through quickly. Vote against him, certainly, but face reality that Bush is going to win this one no matter what and get it over with. Spending time and effort fighting this battle is only going to distract away from far more important ones, such as keeping up scrutiny on Rove. It also means that when Bush gets his next SC pick (and he'll almost certainly be getting at least one more - Rehnquist may get through another year, but anything beyond that is rather unlikely), the Democrats will be much more able to fight without much fear of being labeled 'obstructionist'.

Of course, all this is subject to change if anything new and particularly damaging comes out about Roberts.
 
AA is wrong on the basis of the 14th Ammendment. Beginning and end of argument.

Also, it must be pointed out, that Robert's statements on Roe v. Wade and these other issues have been as an attorney arguing a case for a client. They were NOT personal views. A client had an agenda, in this case the Reagan Justice Department, he was the lawyer tasked with arguing the case.

There's a world of difference between serving the interests of your client in your arguments and handing down decisions from the bench and the accompanying written decision. Of course no one on the left will care about that distinction. At least no one funding the inevitable moveon.org type ads that will make this guy look l ike a Nazi judge.

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, head of the Harvard Law Review? That's impressive enough in itself. I know little about his professional career at this point but suffice to say I think his resume is as polished as can be. Doesn't hurt that he worked for Justice Rhenquist either.

He's going to sail in nomination, the D's aren't going to stop a candidate of this quality.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Here's the problem with this guy though. PAD will disagree with me on this but I'm completely RIGHT in what I'm about to say. Conservatives argue that it isn't fair in jobs with Affirmative Action. Since WHEN has shit been fair in education for Whites and Blacks in low economic standing, see in public school in the city. So the next time Conservatives argue against AA and use MLK's speech in justification know they don't have ONE fucking leg to stand on except against Middle class and upper Blacks.
Truth be told educational funding needs to be fixed THEN they can start to argue that point.[/QUOTE]

I don't think your entirely right either. If I grasp what your saying, AA only needs to stay in place because of education not being up to standards in the urban city areas? If that's true why isn't AA based on your educational background instead of skin color, or for that matter why is gender included at all in AA decisions? What about the white kids in poor school districts (yeah that happens)? Do they just get screwed over twice? Or some the nation's poorest school districts are near Native American reservations, how many native americans are benefiting from affirmative action versus african americans, latin americans, etc.? I'm sure some are, but I'll bet my bottom dollar that it sure isn't equal. So in response to your "completely right" statement, I'll finishing by saying that the educational funding system does need fixing, and so does the affirmative action system. Especially when it comes to things like college admissions and loans.

Edit: And I now realize this leads to a disccusion entirely off-topic mainly, so I'll just stop here.
 
I want to see AA applied where it really does belong.

I have a white friend in Miami, whites are >25% of the population in the city. He gets nothing that "minority" students get as far as admissions, housing subsidies, grants etc. when going to school despite his minority status in Dade County.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I want to see AA applied where it really does belong.

I have a white friend in Miami, whites are >25% of the population in the city. He gets nothing that "minority" students get as far as admissions, housing subsidies, grants etc. when going to school despite his minority status in Dade County.[/QUOTE]

But his odds of being discriminated against in education or professionally are minimal due to him being white. Also, if he is in need of it monetarily then you have an argument that he should be included, if he isn't then you don't.
 
You want to try to get a job in Dade County as a white person? You REALLLY think there's no discrimination when 80% of the population are native Spanish speakers? AA isn't about discrimination it's about balancing "diversity". Whites in Florida State system schools and Comminty College in Dade County need as much as if not more AA type "diversity" advatages as blacks do in New York, Michigan or Pennsylvania.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You want to try to get a job in Dade County as a white person? You REALLLY think there's no discrimination when 80% of the population are native Spanish speakers? AA isn't about discrimination it's about balancing "diversity". Whites in Florida State system schools and Comminty College in Dade County need as much as if not more AA type "diversity" advatages as blacks do in New York, Michigan or Pennsylvania.[/QUOTE]

Yes, due to discrimination. The idea was if they represent 20% of the pertaining areas population they should represent 20% of a university etc. population. I would be suprised if whites are underrepresented anywhere where diversity is to be expected (ie. local hispanic restaurants don't count) in dade county. When it was implemented, and to a lesser extent today, it was needed to ensure that minorities were accepted into universities and such since many places would have always chosen a white applicant over a black, asian etc. Now the focus has shifted more towards economics, and it needs to be readjusted to focus on minorites but also benefit anywhere in similar economic conditions to the minorities it is geared towards (wealthier minorities should not benefit if it is not necessary).

Also, not getting a job because you're white is different than not getting a job where you speak hispanic. One goes towards your qualification, the other has nothing to do with that. Though I'd be suprised if a white person didn't have an easier time finding a quality job than a hispanic person.
 
And just what do you do if to get to a certain percentage of "required" diversity you need 1,000 idiots that are as stupid and illiterate as Fiddy Tent or The Game. While 1,000 qualified whites, Asians or Latino's don't get admitted to schools? What do you do when the washout rate of a "group" is 90% after the first year while denying slots to students whose "group" graduation rates are 85-90%?

Population basis discrimination is still.... discrimination. Lower the bar and let the stupid in if they are "underrepresented" as a "group". Who cares if they fail? At least the white liberals can go home pleased with themselves because they tried.... and failed.... but they still tried.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']And just what do you do if to get to a certain percentage of "required" diversity you need 1,000 idiots that are as stupid and illiterate as Fiddy Tent or The Game. While 1,000 qualified whites, Asians or Latino's don't get admitted to schools? What do you do when the washout rate of a "group" is 90% after the first year while denying slots to students whose "group" graduation rates are 85-90%?

Population basis discrimination is still.... discrimination. Lower the bar and let the stupid in if they are "underrepresented" as a "group". Who cares if they fail? At least the white liberals can go home pleased with themselves because they tried.... and failed.... but they still tried.[/QUOTE]

You missed the point, as usual. It was to prevent them from being discriminated against. It was foolishly believed that effects of centuries of discrimination would disappear instantly and the percentages would balance out. It was correct to assume that many institutions would need to be forced to accept qualified minorities, but the extent of impact discrimination had had was not fully realized. Now the focus is on economics and changes should go in that direction.

Though if you want to show me a university letting in completely unqualified students due to there being minorities just to hit a percent I'd be glad to hear it.

You also seem to agree that your friend wasn't the target of discrimination.

Though the whole "we need stupid people to be represented" is ridiculous. Seriously, you need to take your medication, it's good for you.
 
Let's see, Roberts is vehemently against abortion and he wants to gut the Clean Air Act and Endangered Species Act. Yeah, I'm sure there won't be any "legislating from the bench" with him. I'm hoping for a filibuster on his nomination.
 
They won't filibuster him, the "group of 14" senators promised to use it only on extraordinary circumstances and this is far from extraordinary, despite what you may believe.
 
Why hasn't anyone pointed out that the person nominated to the highest judicial position in the country has 2 years, 1 month, and 17 days of experience as a judge? He was commissioned to the court of appeals in DC on 6/2/03, and had never held a judicial position prior.

It screams that they're trying to nominate someone who is "clean" in this way. How can he have a history of pro-corporate, anti-environment, anti-choice, and anti-egalitarianist legislation when he's such a fucking newb?

Y'know, I'm still two years away from finishing my doctorate, but Roberts' nomination would be like Harvard offering me a tenured position, right now. It's simply absurd to think that this person is deserving of this nomination.
 
I haven't read much about Roberts yet but one consideration is surely going to be his age. At 50 years old, he could be on the court for 30-40 years.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I haven't read much about Roberts yet but one consideration is surely going to be his age. At 50 years old, he could be on the court for 30-40 years.[/QUOTE]

Well, nobody's going to block a nominee for that reason, unless they want to end their political career with a quickness.

I simply think that Roberts has very little to no substantial judicial record, which is more important than anything in considering his nomination (how do you criticize someone so unspectacular if they have no record to speak of? Even the "rust vs. sullivan" fingerpointing is tiresome and irrelevant, since he wrote it as a lawyer, and *of course* he used strong language, since that's what lawyers do).

You don't get your own McDonald's franchise immediately after being promoted to fry cook, and you shouldn't go to the highest court in the land with so little judicial experience.
 
Good point, mykevermin. Though I admit, I still need to research Roberts some more, it seems odd that many other more experienced judges were discarded simply because Bush was looking for an extreme conservative to either

(a) Satisfy the religious right,
(b) Stir up enough controversy and fighting to take attention off Benedict Rove,
(c) Both, (a) and (b).
 
lpo050719.gif
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, nobody's going to block a nominee for that reason, unless they want to end their political career with a quickness.

I simply think that Roberts has very little to no substantial judicial record, which is more important than anything in considering his nomination (how do you criticize someone so unspectacular if they have no record to speak of? Even the "rust vs. sullivan" fingerpointing is tiresome and irrelevant, since he wrote it as a lawyer, and *of course* he used strong language, since that's what lawyers do).

You don't get your own McDonald's franchise immediately after being promoted to fry cook, and you shouldn't go to the highest court in the land with so little judicial experience.[/QUOTE]
I didn't mean it as a reason to oppose him, just that he should be researched thoroughly because he will have a long-lasting effect on the Court.
 
Bush could do all that (see EZB's last post) with an experienced judge. The benefit of Roberts is that he's "clean." There's nothing to stick him on, because there's no record!

For christ's sake: when was the last time, Bush and Kerry notwithstanding (because that was due to political barbs about their respective idiocy), anyone had their college credentials mentioned when going for major political office? This is the entire selling point for Roberts: he got good grades, he was a good lawyer, and he's a nice man. There's NOTHING judicial to praise about the guy, just as there's NOTHING judicial to criticize about the guy. As long as the GOP makes sure they hide the fact that this guy has no relative judicial experience, he couldn't go in any faster if you dipped him in Astro-Glide.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Bush could do all that (see EZB's last post) with an experienced judge. The benefit of Roberts is that he's "clean." There's nothing to stick him on, because there's no record!

For christ's sake: when was the last time, Bush and Kerry notwithstanding (because that was due to political barbs about their respective idiocy), anyone had their college credentials mentioned when going for major political office? This is the entire selling point for Roberts: he got good grades, he was a good lawyer, and he's a nice man. There's NOTHING judicial to praise about the guy, just as there's NOTHING judicial to criticize about the guy. As long as the GOP makes sure they hide the fact that this guy has no relative judicial experience, he couldn't go in any faster if you dipped him in Astro-Glide.[/QUOTE]

That's EXACTLY the problem with Roberts. He has long no experience. You should have more than 2 years of judicial experience in order to be nominated to the Supreme Court.
 
lol, check out the pictures of Roberts' son during the announcement:

capt.whcd11807200147.scotus_bush_whcd118.jpg


President Bush introduces his nominee for the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts Jr., left, as his son John, dances, and wife Jane and daughter Josephine, look on in the State Dining Room at the White House, Tuesday, July 19, 2005, in Washington.


capt.sge.nio95.200705085936.photo03.photo.default-384x252.jpg


r1720464118.jpg


I guess they removed the family because chimpy was getting distracted.
 
We're all eligible to serve on the Supreme Court. You don't have an age, education or experience requirement. You certainly don't need to be a lawyer.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']We're all eligible to serve on the Supreme Court. You don't have an age, education or experience requirement. You certainly don't need to be a lawyer.[/QUOTE]

Though technically correct, no sane president would pick someone without an thorough understanding of the legal system and precedents on court cases.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']We're all eligible to serve on the Supreme Court. You don't have an age, education or experience requirement. You certainly don't need to be a lawyer.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like the plot for a Martin Lawerance movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top