Question Of The Week, 7/17/05
Good morning. When I was trying to think of a question I went to the news wires. One of the first things I saw just kind of jumped out at me. It was the, "Text of President Bush's Radio Address to the Nation for July 16." Which starts out by saying, "THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Under the Constitution, I have the responsibility to nominate a successor to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This past week I met with Democratic and Republican leaders in the United States Senate and sought their views on the process, and their thoughts on the qualities to look for in a potential nominee. Also, my staff has talked with more than 60 members of the United States Senate. Members of the Senate are receiving a full opportunity to provide their opinions and recommendations, and I appreciate their advice.
I will be guided by clear principles as I make my decision. My nominee will be a fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and American values. The nominee will meet the highest standards of intellect, character, and ability, and will pledge to faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country. Our nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court justice that Americans can be proud of."
Yes there was a reason for me posting that before I ask this weeks question. A couple of times since Sandra Day O'Connor announced her plans I have heard that President Bush might nominate Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to take her place. This weeks Question Of The Week has two parts. Do you think President Bush will nominate Gonzales, and does Gonzales fit the description that Bush gives of his nominee?
I will post my answer in the comment section Monday.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
I will be guided by clear principles as I make my decision. My nominee will be a fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and American values. The nominee will meet the highest standards of intellect, character, and ability, and will pledge to faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country. Our nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court justice that Americans can be proud of."
Yes there was a reason for me posting that before I ask this weeks question. A couple of times since Sandra Day O'Connor announced her plans I have heard that President Bush might nominate Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to take her place. This weeks Question Of The Week has two parts. Do you think President Bush will nominate Gonzales, and does Gonzales fit the description that Bush gives of his nominee?
I will post my answer in the comment section Monday.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
posted by David Schantz | 2:39 AM
10 Comments:
thank you for commenting in my site. No, I do not believe Bush will nominate Gonzalez. It may be a woman perhaps. I don't know if you got a chance to read it but in my blog I have an article called "A Supreme Fight" that talks about the importance of this nomination in particular.
The reason I do not believe it will be gonzales is because he will be opposed on the right and the left. President Bush needs to nominate someone who conservatives can rally behind. It will be the only way to beat the big liberal machine that is going to fight tooth and nail anyone that is nominated.
Yes, I think Alberto will be selected by the President. What convinced me of this is when he took a "poly-tickkin" trip to Iraq a couple of weeks ago; obviously a political maneuver.
Do I like him as a nominee? No. If you follow the job he's been doing in his current post, you'll notice he has a fascination with porn, and incarcerating consenting adult individuals for engaging in, producing, and sharing pornography. To me, this demonstrates a fundamental brand of prejudice, as well as a violation of the civil liberties of Americans.
How can we condone a SCOTUS judge who looks at the Constitution and sees ANYTHING in there to prohibit pornography being created and shared amongst adult Citizens? Same with drugs. Same with prostitution. Same with the Patriot Act. Same with RealID.
To ME, a "strict Constitutionalist" would strike down each and every one of those laws as being "unconstitutional", because they ARE unconstitutional if you read the Constitution.
As you can see, I want a TRUE "strict constitutionalist" - MY definition, in every judgeship. We aren't gonna be seeing that though, but I can wish.
I'm not sure who Bush will nominate. Gonzales seemed like the prominent choice for a while, and he would've worked pretty well with Bush's two-seat strategy, but since Rehnquist has basically said he's staying till he's dead, I'm not sure who he'll pick.
I definitely don't want some kind of evangelical fundamentalist who will seek to overturn Roe, lessen the seperation of church and state, and overall a judge who would abandon the principle of stare decisis.
The overriding principle of precedent should be the most importatnt factor (along with picking the best person for the job).
If he did nominate Gonzales, he'd definitely be qualified. I'd have lots of ideological and political problems with the man, but I'd pick him any day over some kind of fundamentalist who's supported by Focus on the Family or some other pissed off 'Family' group.
The first thing that amazes me, is that everyone is itching to do the Presidents job. It is the job of the President and the President only to nominate a candidate. And the only oppoistion to his selection should be based on ability to do the job. There should be no litmus test from either side of the aisle. None, zip, zero. I know we have our own ideas, they don't count. The President is more than capable of choosing. OK, I don't think he will choose Gonzalez, for many reasons. Myself; I wish he would go outside of the lawyer turned judge crowd. Elizabeth Dole would be an excellant choice in my opinion, but I stess again, it is the Presidents call.
We all know that about half of the judges that Presidents choose, end up changing their views anyway. The most important thing in my mind is character. The rest will take care of itself. Maybe he could nominate Laura Bush. Kidding of course...or am I?
There should be a litmus test. They should choose someone who can be an impartial judge and not get their personal opinions get in the way. Although, the people that seem to make the biggest stink about “judicial activism” basically are mad because their opinion didn’t line up with the opinion of the court--whether impartial or not.
Sadly, compared to others I could think of, Gonzales doesn’t look that bad. And that’s sort of sad, because I find the man pretty distasteful. Somehow, I am holding out hope that the President will manage a good choice. Never accuse me of being a pessimist.
I don't know what I was thinking when I said I would answer this question in the comment section Monday morning. I answered this question when I posted my Tuesday July 12 message, "And The Next United States Supreme Court Nominee Will Be?" I haven't changed my mind since I posted that message. So go back to July 12th to see my answer.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
Bush will not nominate gonzales. One cause it would be fought from both sides, and he aint stupid. Two, cause he already has a position.
It seems more likely that his selection will be a woman, he's already telling insiders it won't be Gonzales. See my post here for more discussion.
Alberto R. Gonzales is an American lawyer who served as the 80th United States Attorney General.
Post a Comment
<< Home