Conservative Activists warn Dubya to choose next Supreme Court nominee carefully

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
How ironic that it turns out to be the Radical Right that have obstructed Dubya's SC nominee picks:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As the White House turns its attention to finding a new Supreme Court nominee, conservative activists relieved at Harriet Miers' withdrawal are vowing to oppose President Bush's next nominee unless the candidate has solid conservative credentials.

"I think [conservative groups] will swing into action again" if they disagree with his next pick, said Phyllis Schlafly, president of Eagle Forum. "The judicial issue was a major issue in the 2004 elections, and it was a reason why many people voted for Bush even though they might have been unhappy [with him] for other reasons."

Schlafly said Bush has "a dozen" possible people that conservative activists would accept, while she singled out U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as a nominee they could not embrace. (Possible nominees)

Leaders on the far right opposed the nomination of Miers, the White House counsel, because they did not believe she would fit in the conservative mold of current Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. And for many of these leaders, the same fear lies with Gonzales.

Democrats, however, urged the president to have patience with the process and to pick a nominee in the judicial "mainstream."

"The president now should take his time," said Sen. Charles Schumer. "The president should do it right: slowly, deliberately, carefully, with real consultation and real consensus."

"These are very difficult times for the country, and the nation cries out for unity," said the New York Democrat, who serves on the Judiciary Committee.

Addressing his comments to Bush, Schumer added, "Please help bring America together with a choice that unites, not divides us."

One conservative leader suggested Bush could help bring together a Republican Party in "disarray" by nominating a conservative that Democrats would vehemently oppose.

"A fight I think would be helpful," said the leader, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/scotus.next/index.html
 
He can't nominate Gonzales unless he wants to admit that the "executive privilege" reason for Miers withdrawing was a bunch of hooey. Gonzales will have the same problem in that regard, plus the rabid conservatives hate him and he authorized torture.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']He can't nominate Gonzales unless he wants to admit that the "executive privilege" reason for Miers withdrawing was a bunch of hooey. Gonzales will have the same problem in that regard, plus the rabid conservatives hate him and he authorized torture.[/QUOTE]

The only thing that matters is that Gonzales is marginally pro-choice, at least in some situations. Ultimately, that makes Gonzales an untentable choice for the same reason Miers went down in flames. For all their talk about the horrors of a 'litmus test', there's really only one issue that the right-wing nutcases care about.

Bush is kind of screwed at this point, I think. The only way that he'll make his 'base' happy is to nominate a screaming, slobbering madman. Enough Republicans have woken up to the fact that Bush is a failure, though, that nominating someone who will make his base happy will almost certainly not get through Congress. Nominating a more moderate canidate, though, and he's going to lose his base, which will weaken him further.

His only real hope is to find another stealth nominee like Roberts - someone who his base will know will vote against Roe V. Wade, but who is quiet enough that the moderate Republicans won't have anything concrete to criticize him on (and so will have to vote along party lines.) Its somewhat of a tall order to fill. The fact that he wound up nominating Miers to me indicates that he simply can't find anyone who fills those qualifications (or at least, he can't find any without going outside his circle of friends and people who have helped him in the past...)
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I'm still betting on Roy Moore getting the nomination. :)[/QUOTE]

Heh, at least there would be some fireworks on that one :)

I think Republicans screwed themselves over with what they did on Miers. They've been attempting to set up shop on the moral high ground regarding judicial nominations, insisting that outside interest groups be ignored and that every nominee should get an up-or-down vote. So what do they do with Miers? Allow outside interest groups to influence the process and kill the nomination before even allowing a hearing! It's like federal spending all over again.
 
First off, the executive privilege shouldn't be an issue. Both sides of the senate know that you can't bring that up and someone needs to stand up and bitch slap both party leaders for blocking canidates for this reason. That said, I am happy that Miers got shot down. She wasn't a conservative, and one of the main reasons for a party to want the power of the white house is to appoint judges that side with the party's beliefs. I find it funny that Schumer wants the president to choose someone that unites us. The abortion issue doesn't have that big of a gap in most polls, and I would like to see how the polls were worded. It might show which way the polls were skewed to begin with. The country is roughly 50/50 along party lines, how the hell would putting a nominee that serves the democrats, who only have roughly 50% of the nations support at voting time, unite the country. Wasn't is Schumer and the democrats in the judical committee that shot down moderate people for Federal District level courts at the begining of the bush admin? There was a list of people that didn't even get a senate vote, as they were blocked in the judicial committee
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top