posted on July 1, 2005 08:21:15 PM new
The President is going to stiff his christian extremist supporters and nominate Gonzalez.
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on July 1, 2005 08:37:03 PM new
Um, I'm guessing that's agreement maggie??
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on July 1, 2005 09:34:56 PM new
There are two pieces of good news to keep in mind as President Bush ponders his choice. The first is that, by contrast with the situation in 1987, the Senate has a Republican majority. The second is that President Bush can choose from among many, many well-qualified conservative constitutionalists.
Although President Bush is understandably fond of and loyal to his attorney general Alberto Gonzales, it's simply a fact that Gonzales does not have the stature of several other possible candidates. I now believe that, though tempted, President Bush will leave his attorney general in his current office.
That's Bill Kristol's "bet". And he's one head as he guessed that O'Connor would be the first to retire.
The president has the luxury of choosing among such candidates as Michael McConnell, probably the leading constitutional thinker of his generation, now serving on the 10th Circuit; J. Michael Luttig, who has served with great distinction for 14 years on the 4th Circuit;
the remarkable Janice Rogers Brown, figured you'd just LOVE that one, profe.
...with almost a decade on the California Supreme Court and a recent confirmation to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; as well as other federal and state supreme court judges--some of whom happen to be women (if that matters), and all of whom have strong credentials.
Most of the Democrats will fight any strong candidate. It won't matter if that candidate doesn't have a paper trail, because any nominee will have to make his or her general manner of constitutional thinking clear to the Senate--which thinking will almost inevitably provoke opposition from the left. But such opposition, however vociferous the rhetoric, will not be unstoppable. Indeed, looking at the current Senate, I do not believe that there are 40 Democratic votes to sustain a filibuster against an objectively well -qualified conservative nominee.
And in any case a filibuster would be very difficult for the Democrats to defend.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[taken, in part, from today's Weekly Standard, William Kristol]
Ever since the profe mentioned that he wanted to have Ann Coulter's babies I love teasing him.
--
And profe...here's another little quote from one you once tolerated.
"Elections have consequences," said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican. "The president clearly stated when he ran for re-election that he would be appointing conservative nominees to the Supreme Court. It comes as no surprise if a conservative nominee comes over."
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 2, 2005 10:28:36 AM new
Ron - You may be right....but I hope not. I'd rather see the most qualified conservative put in O'Connor's seat....rather than be chosen because they're of a certain race or gender.
But there are several conservative women candidates he has to consider too.
From what I've been reading....he had a list to choose from for quite a while....but they were to replay Rehnquist....now...the situation's a lot different. But's it's fun reading who others think he should pick and why they think that way.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 5, 2005 08:47:53 AM new
Ronald Reagan chose O'Connor because she was a woman. He was adamant that he wanted a woman on the Supreme Court. He picked the sex of the person first and used their qualifcations second. All O'Connor and Reagan talked about in her interview was ranching.
posted on July 5, 2005 09:14:21 AM new
Wow was that a sexiest answer. Do you know that for sure. Can you back that up?
Reagan picked her because of her qualifications. She was a judge in the Applet court in Arizona and you don't get that high from who you know it is what you know especially back then. Maybe now they do but remember judges are picked by the President and picked according to the views of the President and they don't pick a judge on the views of the opposing party. This is why this past election was so important.
posted on July 5, 2005 09:53:07 AM new
Mingotree, I've read that about O'Connor and Reagan before too. More than one insider has said that Ronnie's first priority was to put a woman on the court.
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on July 5, 2005 11:17:51 AM new
President Reagan selected O'Connor because she was a woman AND a conservative.
If you read anything about her rulings you will see that as time went on she moved further and further to the left on social/cultural issues.
I recently read a piece that was about how many President's have selected judges for the USSC and were disappointed in their future rulings.....Souter in particular.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 5, 2005 11:30:15 AM newI recently read a piece that was about how many President's have selected judges for the USSC and were disappointed in their future rulings.....Souter in particular.
The wisdom of age and experience.....
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on July 5, 2005 11:44:45 AM new
lol profe, sometimes yes...other times when there's no 'history' of how they ruled in the past....they can pull the wool over some eyes.
----------
Liberal groups are preparing to take aim at any staunchly conservative jurist. Conservative groups remember, with trepidation, that some of the court's most liberal justices were picked by Republican presidents.
The lesson is that justices are people and people can be unpredictable.
\
"There is a long history of those who didn't turn out as expected," said Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who frequently argues before the high court. "It has something to do with their independence - justices, once they're appointed, answering to nobody but themselves."
posted on July 5, 2005 11:52:08 AM new
Thank you Libra63 for saying I had the sexiest answer, I am pretty sexy but usually my posts aren't.
Reagan was determined to have a woman as a justice. Libra63 it's a matter of history.
posted on July 5, 2005 01:13:23 PM new
Libra63, I'm glad you stand by your statement that my post is the sexiest but as to Reagan choosing a woman...it's a matter of history, study it, look it up, it's there.He did want someonme with good qualifications, it just had to be a woman.
Not believing it will not make it untrue.
He might have made that statement, but there are not very males that would compare to her.
Sandra Day O'Connor: Self-reliant and ambitious
By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
(CNN) -- Sandra Day O'Connor grew up possessed with a strong will and ambition, which helped her overcome discrimination against female lawyers and eventually take her to the nation's highest court.
As lovingly recalled in her 2002 memoir, "Lazy B: Growing Up on a Cattle Ranch in the American Southwest," O'Connor grew up on nearly 200,000 acres of rural Arizona ranchland. The ranch was 25 miles from the nearest town, and she lived without running water or electricity until she was 7 years old.
By then she was roping, riding and repairing fences with the cowboys, and she knew how to shoot a gun and steer a pickup.
She was born March 26, 1930 in El Paso, Texas, to Harry A. Day and Ada Mae Wilkey Day.
She entered law school at Stanford University in 1950 and was in the same class as fellow justice William Rehnquist. When they graduated in 1952, he finished first while she was third in their class of 102. She also married her husband, John Jay O'Connor III, in 1952. They have three sons.
But after graduating, she was repeatedly turned down by firms that would not hire women, except one that offered her a job as a legal secretary.
A varied career
She eventually found a job -- and a calling -- as a deputy county attorney in San Mateo County, California. The job "influenced the balance of my life," she recalled, "because it demonstrated how much I did enjoy public service."
Her career has been varied, including a stint as a civilian lawyer for the U.S. Army in Germany and running her own law firm. In 1965, she became an assistant state attorney general in Arizona and left that position in 1969 when she was appointed to a state Senate seat.
She was subsequently re-elected to two two-year terms and was elected Senate majority leader in 1972. O'Connor is the only sitting Supreme Court justice who has served in elected office.
She left the Senate to run for a state judge seat, which she won. In 1979, she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals by then-Gov. Bruce Babbitt and served there until she was appointed to the Supreme Court.
O'Connor was surprised when President Ronald Reagan fulfilled a campaign pledge to nominate a woman to the high court and chose her in July 1981 to replace Justice Potter Stewart. Reagan described her at the time as "truly a person for all seasons, possessing qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity and devotion to public good."
During Senate confirmation hearings in 1981, she was asked about the legacy she hoped to leave.
"Ah, the tombstone question," O'Connor replied. "I hope it says, 'Here lies a good judge.'"
In court, O'Connor's demeanor is serious and studied, her questions spare and pointed on the practical effect of laws. This exchange from the 2000 Bush v. Gore Florida ballot recount is typical: "Isn't there a big red flag out there [saying] 'watch out'?" she asked Gore's lawyer about whether the Florida Supreme Court usurped the role of the state Legislature when it ordered a new recount to commence.
Privately, friends and colleagues all say O'Connor is fun to be around.
"She was a great role model both personally and professionally," says Carolyn Frantz. "She showed me the importance of how to balance all aspects of life. She expected us to work hard, but also cared about us. When I would be there late at night, she might come in and say, 'What are you doing here? You really ought to go home.'"
A stickler for detail
O'Connor is known for her intensity, her desire to be in control, and as a stickler for detail.
Colleagues fondly recall a reunion last year in Arizona of her former clerks, where O'Connor's people skills were on display. She remembered all the names of spouses and children of clerks from years past. For them, she has organized potluck suppers, ski outings, mandatory trips to museums and musical jam sessions in her chambers with friends and colleagues.
Her toughness and her dry wit were on display when O'Connor was diagnosed in 1988 with breast cancer. She was back on the bench within weeks after treatment. After answering repeated inquiries about her health, O'Connor released a statement in 1990 saying, "I am not sick. I am not bored. I am not resigning."
In a 1994 speech, she recalled how she did not like the publicity that the diagnosis brought her.
"The worst was my public visibility, frankly," she said. "There was constant media converge: 'How does she look?' 'When is she going to step down and give the president another vacancy on the court?' 'You know, she looks pale to me, I don't give her six months...'"
O'Connor has not only survived, but thrived in both life and the law. She published her memoir, "Lazy B: Growing Up on a Cattle Ranch in the American Southwest," in 2002. She followed that up with another book in 2003, "The Majesty of the Law: Reflections of a Supreme Court Justice," part memoir and part historical account.
In her latter book, O'Connor writes an open letter to her granddaughter Courtney, telling her, "A nation's success or failure in achieving democracy is judged in part by how well it responds to those at the bottom and the margins of the social order... The very problems that democratic change brings -- social tension, heightened expectations, political unrest -- are also strengths. Discord is a sign of progress afoot; unease is an indication that a society has let go of what it knows and is working out something better and new."
posted on July 5, 2005 03:24:32 PM new
I always wanted to be sexiest...never mind.
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
