A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
July 01, 2005A Centrist Case for Alberto GonzalezRedstate is speculating about a White House visit for Texas Senator John Cornyn, saying that POTUS could be either assessing his interest on (1) the O'Conner seat, or (2) the Attorney General's office. I hope it is the second scenario, and I endorse the nomination of Alberto Gonzalez to the Supreme Court. GONZALEZ IS A GOOD FIT: The O'Connor retirement means that the Court is losing a moderate swing vote. O'Conner, for instance, is pro-choice and voted in favor of McCain-Feingold. Alberto Gonzalez, regardless of how you feel about the torture memo, was for all intents and purposes a moderate Judge in Texas. Conservatives have taken to calling him the Hispanic Souter, and he has been known in the past for speaking out against judicial activism from both ideological extremes. Appointing Gonzalez allows the middle leaning makeup of the Court to continue, where as appointing a conservative to replace O'Conner could mean a shift on high profile cases such as Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, Gonzalez has proven himself to be bright, thoughtful, and well respected within the legal community, not to mention that the appointment of a hispanic would bring much needed diversity to the Court. In the year 2000 Bush threw conservative activist Gary Bauer out of the Republican National Convention for protesting a platform change that would eliminate the party's stance advocating the abolishment of the Department of Education. This President is a conservative, there is no two ways about it; however, at the beginning of his Presidency he had no problem keeping activists on the far right at bay on various issues, and letting them know periodically who was in charge. The Rove strategy for re-election has changed all of this and the administration has done it's best in recent years to cow tow to the far right. Appointing Gonzalez, which no doubt would anger many conservative activists, would once and for all put them in their place and end this charade about who is exactly running the country. This course of action, among other things, could also put the President back in the driver's and allow him to propose policy alternatives on Social Security, taxes, etc. like he did in his first term on "No Child Left Behind" and Medicare. Picking Gonzalez would be the type of bold move that could further establish the President's legacy as a strong leader, that has been severely endangered in the years after the Iraq invasion. FEASIBILITY: Because of the political ramifications of losing some in the party's base, one could conclude that a Gonzalez appointment isn't going to happen; however, it is well known that if Bush could have anyone, Gonzalez would be the pick, and it isn't as if this is a man who isn't accustomed to getting what he wants even if it means pissing off a few people. Conservatives weren't dancing in the streets, for instance, over the Margaret Spellings nomination at Education, Johnson at EPA, or Leavitt at HHS. Granted, this is the Supreme Court, but George W. Bush is George W. Bush. I still believe he has got it in him. UPDATE: John Cornyn, in regards to Gonzalez, on Fox: "He would do a good job." Could it be that Cornyn was being drafted to defend a Gonzalez nomination to conservatives? I hope so. Redstate says it has various sources that have stated Cornyn is Bush's man. I hope not. Because he is a Senator, he probably would be confirmed easily, but I am not very inspired by a white, male, conservative, from Texas. Conservatives are going on the attack, fearing a Gonzalez nomination. Others speculate that the pick will be: Judge Emilio Garza. Posted by Mathew at July 1, 2005 12:05 PMComments
Matt, pet peeve FYI: the expression is "for all intents and purposes," not "for all intensive purposes." Tons of room for speculation. Bush has to decide how much political capital he has and how much he wants to spend opn this as opposed to other goals. Reid's recent floaters notwithstanding, democrats and especially the left seem bound to make it hard on any semi-moderate nominee by crying apocalypse. That's why I'm forecasting the twofer scenario of a hardliner to please the right and a token who is moderate enough to give mainstream democrats some hope. Archconservatives are bound to grumble over the "no real progress" scenario this is likely to represent, anf they wouldn't really be wrong. Buif the twofer comes to pass, i think "let's spread it around" will carry the day. I'm going to give Bush minimum credit in forecasting that he goes the "spread it" route because it gives a better chance of fostering SS reform, which I think he is serious about as a top priority. IF Bush tries to ram 2 archconservatives down the democrats throats, SS reform is DOA. My sense is that businesses want SS reform because they want cost predictability and a stable economy in the face of changing demographics. And let's face it, these interests are the ones who really pay the GOP's bills. (And I'm not saying that it's a bad thing in this case...) Posted by: bk at July 1, 2005 12:25 PMUnfortunately, a Justice Gonzales may have serious negative implications on the president's prerogatives over declaring and detaining enemy combatants when Padilla bubbles back up to the Supreme Court. The 4th Cir. will hear that case July 19, creating the potential to present a SCOTUS appeal next Term. Posted by: The Jaded JD at July 1, 2005 01:17 PMGonzales would be a terrible nominee to the high court. He is pro choice; he is pro affirmative action; he is pro torture. What on earth - the desire to "get the first latino on the court" aside - could possibly motivate a conservative President, who has previously signed up to the "no more Souters" mantra, to appoint such a proverbially "Souter-ish" candidate. Posted by: Simon at July 1, 2005 02:02 PMBy the way, personally, I can't help but feel that there is an obvious answer to all this...Justice Janice R. Brown! ;) Posted by: Simon at July 1, 2005 02:06 PMDamn, Simon, ya beat me to it! So I'll throw the othr curveball...Priscilla Owens. Posted by: Tully at July 1, 2005 02:12 PMMatt, pet peeve FYI: the expression is "for all intents and purposes," not "for all intensive purposes." What, do you work at a publishing house or something? ;-) Posted by: Scott at July 1, 2005 02:18 PMThe President made it very clear during the 2000 and 2004 elections that he would appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Not extreme candidates but ones who are similar to those two, not ones like O'Connor. Now is his chance to make good on his campaign promise. I still think judges who will let legislatures do their job is the best way to get compromises. Take the hot button issue of abortion. Right now none of the compromises that the vast majority support can be enacted (limits on abortion without making it totally illegal) because SCOTUS took a side. If it is ever returned to the states, they could limit it to just cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. Or just to the first 2 trimesters. Etc. Those compromises are possible in legislatures whereas the SCOTUS must argue from principle (and ideally Constitutional principle) to come to a consistent position. That makes compromise impossible. I'm not sure what the concensus "moderate" view on Constitutionality is, but I must say there is an argument that Constructionist/Originalists are the most conducive to compromise legislation and that conservatives/liberals are the least conducive. Posted by: Adam C at July 1, 2005 02:33 PMI actually appreciate the correction of my mistakes. Janice Rogers Brown? Priscilla Owens? That was meant to be sarcastic, right? I mean there is a difference between nudging the court your direction and completely and utterly revamping it's ideological path. Simon, If pro-choice and pro-affirmative action isn't acceptable than why is it again that you think Olympia Snowe would make a good President? And, BTW, "Souterish" can be defined any way Bush wants. Posted by: Mathew at July 1, 2005 02:34 PMSimon, Nevermind, I misread what you were saying. And he would do it because he knows and trusts him, which is the Bush mantra. BTW, Gonzalez has never said anything other than he would take a thoughtful approach to affirmantive and/or abortion. I don't think anyone can argue that he is solidly for or against either.... Which is another reason Bush would appoint him. Posted by: Mathew at July 1, 2005 02:43 PMAdam C: Bush's campaign promises can be defined by Bush... What exactly is in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, anyway? However, I do think it will be used against him by conservatives if he picks someone they don't like. My thoughts on that? Who gives a rat's ass. Posted by: Mathew at July 1, 2005 02:45 PMI was going to stay out of this one but as an attorney I have to object to one thing that was posted above. Gonzo is not “pro-torture” as Simon put it. He wrote a memo that outlined a position as asked by his boss. This does not mean he advocates that position. Attorneys are often asked to play devil’s advocate and write memos that outline a position that may not be their own. For example I was once given a set of facts and told to determine what crimes had been committed. I wrote a memo that stated that after reviewing the facts and the law I found no crimes. The memo came back to me with a note in red pen that said “There ARE crimes here! Now find them.” I then wrote a memo that outlined 6-7 crimes from the same set of facts even though my opinion was still that there were no crimes committed. This is a pretty common scenario that just about every attorney must face. One of your roles as an attorney is advocate. Sometimes the advocate has to defend a person he knows is guilty or take a position he doesn’t agree with. That is part of the job description. You cannot impute the clients position to the attorney. If an ACLU lawyer defends a KKK member’s right to free speech is he supporting the KKK? I’m sure that there are many reasons to oppose a Gonzo nomination to the Supreme Court but this “pro-torture” crap is not one of them. I don’t mind reading anti-Gonzo or pro-Gonzo arguments but please leave out the bs talking points like this one. Joking, Mathew? Not at all. Or at least, not much. And a re-surfacing of Miguel Estrada wouldn't surprise me a bit. Posted by: Tully at July 1, 2005 03:00 PMDidn't Estrada just argue a case before the court? It seems that I heard his name in one of these recent higher profile cases. Posted by: AR at July 1, 2005 03:12 PMI am not very inspired by a white, male, conservative, from Texas. Isn't this reverse racism/sexism or something? Did you have problems with Breyer on similar grounds? Posted by: Scott at July 1, 2005 03:15 PMBill Kristol has all but run up the white flag on the Gonzales Court A Gonzales nomination would, in my view, virtually forfeit any chance in the near term for a fundamental reversal in the downward drift of American constitutional jurisprudence. But I now think it is more likely than not to happen.I will write in reply to Mathew's comments r.e. Snowe and abortion/AA later. :) Posted by: Simon at July 1, 2005 03:20 PM Scott, That is the dumbest thing I have heard all day. I didn't say I hated him or would even advocate a vote against him, which I wouldn't. The President could do worse. However, I do believe that the court is too homogeneous and would like to see a qualified, moderate to conservative, women or minority, get the nod. That doesn't make me a racist or sexist, and the implication that it does is, well, utterly ridiculous. For the record, I think Stephen Breyer is a pretty good judge. Posted by: Mathew at July 1, 2005 03:23 PMAnd, flying under the radar but reportedly on the "short list," is Appellate Judge Edith Brown Clement. Posted by: Tully at July 1, 2005 03:36 PMMathew, it seems to my dumb mind the point of picking a judge to the Supreme Court is to find the most capable, intelligent judicial mind for the job. Whether that person is male or female, Caucasian, African-American or Hispanic should be unimportant. This hardly means Cornyn is a good candidate, but whether someone inspires you as a judge is utterly, completely beside the point. So allow me to say in return what you wrote about the court and inspiration is the silliest thing I've read all day. Sorry. Posted by: Scott at July 1, 2005 03:58 PMThose of y'all from Texas will know what I'm about to say is true: for Texans, loyalty trumps ideology. I'm not saying Gonzales is a given by any stretch, only that Bush is loyal to the man and vice versa. The fact that Gonzales may not be the perfect conservative may not matter to Bush because he knows Gonzales is a good man (and one of integrity, I might add). Cornyn could very well have been enlisted to help a Gonzales nomination along, as he comes from the same circle back home. Plus, I think Bush would absolutely love to appoint a hispanic. And not just out of political reasons but because he sincerely thinks "it's time." I could, of course, be completely wrong. But if you read this from a Texan viewpoint, Gonzales is definitely a top-of-the-list candidate. We'll see the real conservative come out of Bush's back pocket when Rehnquist retires. Posted by: Alan at July 1, 2005 05:46 PMHere's something weird: Try browsing to www.stopgonzales.org. How bizarre! Posted by: Simon at July 1, 2005 05:54 PMThe domain shows up as being owned by NARAL, all right. Registered in 2003! Amusingly, the server location is in Canada. Posted by: Tully at July 1, 2005 06:13 PMSTOPGARZA, STOPOWEN, STOPMCCONNELL, and STOPGONZALES are all registered to NARAL. STOPESTRADA is registered to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and that record was created Nov 2004, so it wasn't to block his earlier nomination. STOPROBERTS is also registered to them. STOPBROWN is registered to People for the American Way. As are STOPALITO and STOPWILKINSON and and STOPJONES and STOPLUTTIG. STOPCLEMENT doesn't show up. I told you she was flying under the radar! And now we know what an "extremist" candidate is. Anyone Bush wants to pick without asking the left first. Except maybe Clement. Posted by: Tully at July 1, 2005 06:36 PM It seems to me that - while Bush certainly stands by his man, and while that's cetainly admirable - he has to think real carefull about what he's about to do. George W. Bush will have the opportunity to appoint at least two, and maybe as many as three Justices of the Supreme Court. He has the opportunity to fundamentally realign that court; he could appoint Alito, Brown and Garza, solid conservatives all, and keep the GOP base happy for a long time to come. Or, he can appoint his buddy, Albert. If the court's balance were other than it is, maybe he'd have more lattitude; maybe for his third nomination, if Stevens leaves, he could put Albert there. But business first. Posted by: Simon at July 1, 2005 06:46 PMI suspect it may be a bit premature to conclude that the president will nominate two members of the Court. May, perhaps, but not will. At least not as of today. Posted by: The Jaded JD at July 2, 2005 10:06 PMRehnquist is said to be looking much healthier of late. Posted by: Tully at July 3, 2005 03:13 PMI see no one has mentioned the name of Judge Prado yet.
Rehnquist is said to be looking much healthier of late.Compared to what? Posted by: c3 at July 5, 2005 06:53 PM Blue Jean, Did you actualy vote for Bush? It seems to me that you are suggesting he should ignore the campaign promises he made to the people who actualy voted him into office and do the "easy" thing by satisfying the people who didn't. There is a word for that... but I wouldn't call it "sensible". Why is it that every time it is suggested that the Democrats moderate some of thier platform in order to garner more appeal with swing-voters your back goes up about a betrayel of principles and turning into "GOP-lite" but when it comes to Republicans full-filling campaign promises to thier base compromise suddenly becomes the "sensible" thing to do? Believe it or not, some people actualy voted for the GOP and BUSH because they wanted them to follow through on THIER principles (which are entirely different then the ones the Dem's and thier supporters have). Posted by: cengel at July 6, 2005 01:29 PMCompared to how he looked a month or two ago. It wasn't a snide comment--he seems to be recovering very well. Posted by: Tully at July 6, 2005 01:59 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
