Bush to appoint Gonzales to Supreme Court (to replace O'Connor)

so will he or won't he appooint Gonzales? No doubt it will be someone diverse? but will there be a reason for announcing this quickly:

quote: The White House, unsure of when Fitzgerald might announce indictments, wants to keep the Supreme Court announcement ace up its sleeve in order to compete for news coverage when Fitzgerald makes his announcement.
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

Mr. Torture. What a great appointment.

I'm sure the torture won't stop Bush?

If Gonzales ever gets on the Supreme Court we might as well float on a boat to anywhere but here.

otherwise, it's too misleading ... OK??? ok

*wipes brow*

that is the problem? One hears rumors.....

?

People don't care to have their chain yanked around here.

The current headline?

Yank-O-rama.

Unless you WANT to get flamed.

In that case, don't touch the headline...you're good to go.

:evilgrin:

it's like we're stealing a page from Rove's handbook here :rofl:

but he still has to deliver for the neo-cons. Gonzales is a contender....

Speculation continues to swirl around the question of whether Bush will name Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. Bush and Gonzales, the former White House counsel, have a close relationship, dating back to their days in Texas
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092401265_pf.html

appoint Gonzales right before more torture pics are released? One can only hope they really are stupid enough to do this.

and none of them (the catholics) women.

I really hate to even bring that up, but I think we know what that will do to Roe v. Wade.

Threw the towel in. I was never pro-life, never. I have always been pro-choice and always will be. My parents were both pro-choice Catholics as well.

Don't underestimate Catholics.

Many are free-thinkers.

I dumped the Church because of the child molestation issues. I found out I know the #1 pervert that was doing this (220+ cases of molestation) and that finished ME off. He is now in prison at San Quentin, California. That gives me some restitution, but not much.

Re: the Church and abortion - the Church in many areas now consider it to be a "forgivable sin" and they offer workshops and the like to "recover". The Church has become so very desperate to retain and gain new members as they know and even acknowledge that their reputation stinks because of the child molestation crimes.

Worry about these damn Baptists. They are really the ones the adhere to this agenda far more than many Catholics do IMO for what it might be worth.

:kick:

O'Connor would be a great example too.

But I don't think there are any baptists on the SC. And Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas, are not the men I would trust with the future of women's rights.

Roberts and Gonzalez, we don't know about.

I just don't think a balanced court should have too much of ANY one possible viewpoint. It should be a broader spectrum of americans.

Glad to know someone agrees with me. Many say I am full of crap and lies. This is not at all true.

In Ireland for example, once a heavy Catholic place, the religion drawing the most converts these days is Buddhism. They threw the towel in on the Church too after all of the disgusting acts of the Church historically have finally come to light for all to see.

The Church is dead IMO. Find a new religion if you need one is what I think.

I still believe is some aspects of the Church and I like reading about the lives of the Saints. However, a lot of it is a crock and I've always believed that way.

We need a SCOTUS that is truly representative of the population at large, not just that of the privileged few. Religion should have no place in the SCOTUS.

:kick:

catholics are indeed factionalized on social issues. On the "New Morality Scale" their group hovers on the mean (whereas Baptists, JW's, Adventists, LDS, Evangelicals, etc. are very much on the conservative side of the mean). The NMS (Roof & McKinney, 1987) measures attitudes on three issues; 1)support for unrestricted aborion, 2) the view that married persons having sexual relations w/someone other than the marriage partner is not always wrong, and 3) the view that sexual relations b/w adults of the same sex is not always wrong.

Although diminishing in numbers in the USA, they are still a huge group, anyway you cut it; thus conservative Catholics are a powerful constituent.

When Gonzales was being grilled for AG, everyone knew about the torture, but the R's downplayed it by saying it was only a temporary appointment, not a lifetime appt.

I'll guess that if he wants to play the Hispanic card he chooses Emilio Garza instead of Gonzalez. Of course what do I know?

I thought that I heard somewhere that he was. Apparently, the hardcore conservatives are planning to vote against him if he is nominated.

Bush can't leave the Supreme Court with eight men and one woman who Pat Robertson wants God to smite.

Choose Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown and you're on the right track.

Eegads. I didn't want them on the lower courts let alone the Supreme Court. If Owen, Brown, or Gonzo are the choices, I would pick Gonzo.
Not much to choose from there.

candidates.
Janice Rogers Brown
http://think2004.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/10/161834/188
>>>snip
"State Supreme Court nominee Janice Rogers Brown, whose confirmation is expected next week, was rated unqualified by at least three-fourths of state bar evaluators, who concluded she was too inexperienced and prone to inserting conservative personal views into her appellate opinions ... Bar evaluators received complaints that Brown was insensitive to established legal precedent, had difficulty grasping complex civil litigation, lacked compassion and intellectual tolerance for opposing views, misunderstood legal standards and was slow to produce opinions. Brown once described herself as more conservative than Wilson. She has refused to say whether she shares Wilson's opposition to affirmative action, but she is believed to be more conservative than Wilson's two other recent appointees, Chin and Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar.

>>>>>snip
# A 1999 dissent drafted by Brown suggested that the First Amendment allows employees to use racial epithets in the workplace;

# A Brown decision would have barred administrative agencies from awarding compensatory damages in race discrimination cases;

# A Brown opinion would have struck down a law requiring paint companies to help fund treatment of children exposed to lead paint;

# Rated "unqualified" by three-fourths of the state bar's examiners when nominated to the California Supreme Court;

# Brown told a meeting of the Federalist Society that "where government moves in, community retreats civil society disintegrates";

# Brown has said that government leads to "families under siege, war in the streets..."

# Brown said that "when government advances, freedom is imperiled civilization itself jeopardized."

# Brown told an audience that people of faith were embroiled in a "war" against secular humanists who threatened to divorce America from its religious roots.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12751

>>>>snip
Janice Rogers Brown on the New Deal, the Great Society, and the “transmutation” of the Constitution
I have argued that collectivism was (and is) fundamentally incompatible with the vision that undergirded this country’s founding. The New Deal, however, inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality. The Constitution itself was transmuted into a significantly different document...1937...marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution...Politically, the belief in human perfectibility is another way of asserting that differences between the few and the many can, over time, be erased. That creed is a critical philosophical proposition underlying the New Deal. What is extraordinary is the way that thesis infiltrated and effected American constitutionalism over the next three-quarters of a century. Its effect was not simply to repudiate, both philosophically and in legal doctrine, the framers’ conception of humanity, but to cut away the very ground on which the Constitution rests... In the New Deal/Great Society era, a rule that was the polar opposite of the classical era of American law reigned

Priscilla Owen:
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/000361.html
>>>>snip
For those not familiar with Judge Owen or the ongoing criticism of her, she gives new meaning to the word "conservative." She is perhaps best known for her staunch opposition to abortion.
>>>>snip
"Justice Owen has also shown a disturbing lack of sensitivity to judicial ethics. She has raised large amounts of campaign contributions from corporations and law firms, and then declined to recuse herself when those contributors have had cases before her. And as a judicial candidate, she publicly endorsed a pro-business political action committee that was raising money to influence the rulings of the Texas Supreme Court."

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/LAW/07/columns/fl.colb.owen.07.31/
>>>>>snip
(FindLaw) -- Last week, the Senate held hearings on whether to confirm Priscilla Owen, a Texas Supreme Court Justice, for a position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Owen holds an extremely narrow view of a minor's right to abortion -- one that a majority of her colleagues on the Texas high court have rejected as inconsistent with state law. In part for this reason, her nomination has provoked considerable controversy

There are thousands upon thousands of justices of the peace, magistrates, state circuit riders and not a few barracks lawyers who are FAR more qualified to serve on the Supreme Court than Owen, Brown or Gonzalez.

You could get John T. Orcutt, a Fayetteville lawyer whose practice is limited to personal bankruptcy, on the USSC and have a more qualified jurist than any of those three. Heck, why NOT Orcutt? It's not like he's going to have anything to do in about three weeks anyway.

Forget logic and think "what would Dipshit Dubya do if he was here right now? He'd make a plan and he'd follow through, that's what Dipshit Dubya'd do." And what Dipshit Dubya would do is nominate the worst fuckin' excuse for a judge he could get his hands on to be on the Supreme Court.

'nominate' it should have been not appoint (gets confusing with all the other 'appointments')

Colleagues in Texas email me that Rove and Cornyn are long-standing collaborators and it could be Rove's comeback pitch after a fairly disastrous Katrina effort.

The Right would love it because Cornyn is such a humorless powermonger.

Senator Cornyn would be a fellow Senator, and therefore harder to filibuster, even if he is a right-wing nutcase and a hateful sonofabitch to boot.

Bush could make the claim that Cornyn was elected by American voters and has the right to an up-or-down vote by his fellow elected co-senators. Pressure is on for a more diverse Court, but Bush is never again up for re-election and can nominate anybody he chooses.

I should imagine the person he 'annoints' (nominates) will be controversial so as to overshadow what might come out in the Fitzgerald report/indictment(s) re Plame case? Or perhaps they will come up with some other October surprise/distraction like nuking Iran or whatever?:evilgrin:

-- forgetting how media-directed Rove is.

I think you're right on this. It may be the fistfight over a controversial nominee to obscure the failures everywhere else -- Iraq, NOLA, Plame, etc.

going to be his own case.