Bush is going to have at least TWO appointments before the 2006 elections.  Therefore, he can appoint a hardline rightwing Justice that will pass Congress now, to satisfy the RW.  Then the next one, Rehnquist, can be replaced by someone more towards the center, and that appointment will, oddly, move the Court that will have shifted RIGHT under this Justice shift back to the plain right a little.  He will have pleased his RW base.

           The other possibility is to have the moderate conservative and the Scalia clone in opposite order, so the RW starts incensed and then becomes calmer.  My guess is that won't wash.  And both Justices will have to be someone expected to be antiChoice.

      

If we get in a situation in which the Dems do seek to prolong debate on an extremist nominee, it will be important to emphasize that Chafee and several other Rep. Senators will not vote for cloture -- so its a bi-partisan filibuster. Yesterday, the Republican talking points were clearly pushing hard on it being unprecedented for one-party to filibuster a SC nominee.

I very much doubt that the president is going to risk nominating Gonzales -- at least this time around, especially considering that he just took over at the Justice Department.  If the president really has the mettle to inflame his base by nominating Gonzales (and I don't believe that he does), then he'll likely hold off until Rehnquist retires.

What is curious to me is why is the Attorney General visiting the troops in Iraq?  I can't remember an Attorney General ever visiting a war zone to schmooze with the troops before.  Looked to me like an attempt to polish his image with the wingers.

Well, he should be proud of what he wrought.

But, seriously, can you come up with a logical reason for him to be there?  It's not like Iraq is a stable situation ready for Admin victory laps.  I haven't heard any rational offered for why he's there.

Seems to me that you'd want to keep VIP visits to an absolute minimum considering the state of affairs there.

Gonzalez is a hack. Nothing more.

If Bush appoints Gonzalez, that will be an own goal of the first water. First, the social conservatives will hate it. Then, the D's will hate it. It might be rejected. On the other hand, if it passes...who cares? Seriously, Bush is going to appoint a justice here. So it's going to be somebody. On the whole, the change from O'Conner to Gonzalez would be minor, given that O'Conner tended to be all over the map.

The main problem with Gonzalez is that's he such a terrible, awful lawyer. But, in the political sense, even if Gonzalez makes to the Court, it's a win.

I don't think Bush would be that stupid, but then, I didn't think he would be stupid enough to invade Iraq and then _hang_around_. Winning the election may have convinced him of his own infallibility, so he's just going to self-immoliate here. Cf: Social Security and whatnot.

That would be GREAT!

ash


['Keep it up, George!']

Gonzalez could be in Iraq because he is sick of listening to Cheney tell the cabinet how great things are going over there. He wants to hear it from the grunts, and to see for himself what a guerilla war reminiscent of Viet Nam looks like.

Prove to me that Gonzales supports Roe.

I'm heading out to a family cook-out.  Happy 4th everyone.  I'll check back in later.

RE: AG's abortion stance.  I cannot find anywhere where Al has made a clear pro-choice statement.  He's had a couple of moderate votes on abortion access in TX, but it may have been more about an unwillingness to flout established law as Owens did.  His decisions were correct and defensible -- that's to his credit.  But he sure wasn't moderate about fast tracking executions or dumbing down torture.

Bottomline:  I think his 'moderate' record on abortion is a smokescreen.  Al will be a reliable vote to overturn Roe -- or begin to as it may well be done incrementally.  A better measure would be his position on States Rights, which I haven't had time to research.  Abortion is as much a States' Rights issue as it is a moral issue.

I'll bet you Al does NOT believe that there is a CONSTITUTIONAL right to abortion.  He'll probably be willing to throw it back to the states.  In many of which, abortion rights will be strongly curtailed if not outright banned.

I'm wondering about this trial of Saddam and whether in fact the administration is stalling, as some have thought. It's possible Saddam would reveal things, at a trial, about the run-up to the invasion that would put Bush+ which could be problematical now that more and more manipulations of the casus belli are found almost on a daily  basis.

Excellent points, Mark. Repubs can claim Dems don't have the right to fight on ideological grounds all they want--it doesn't make it true.

We should also counter comments about the President's "right" to nominate anyone he wants with statements about his "responsibility" to nominate someone whose values reflect the majority of the people. A supreme court appointment is not merely swag the Pres can give away to pay back political obligations.

The right's efforts to frame Gonzales as "too liberal" is just a cynical scam to portray Democrats who object as "leftists" and "extremists." 
It will take a lot more than his obscene justifications of torture to defeat Gonzales, so those opposed should be ready with additional information on his extremism and lack of independence.

Interesting read eRobin.  My take on it is that would we prefer someone who believes in Stare Decisis and not in rightwing judicial activism (Gonzalez' took an anti-rightwing judicial activism position in Doe).  The alternative is a Priscilla Ownes or Janice Rogers-Brown...and we know what they think about Roe.  They would disregard every bit of judicial restraint an engage in rightwing activism in order to overturn Roe.  I don't need to hear Gonzalez say he is for Roe, just because he isn't taking tortured judicial positions to chip away at Roe is a positive sign on it's face.

Refraining from making a nomination because of the fear of the political repercussions isn't anything at all like a filibuster.  The two cases aren't anything alike. 

Personally, I think Bush is going to nomiate Miguel Estrada.

¿Como se llama “Souter” en español?

Durbin asked Gonzales a direct question about Roe on Jan 6 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_sen ate_hearings&docid=f:99932.wais)

Pretty unequivocal answer.

    Senator Durbin. The last question is a brief one, and it
may have been touched on earlier. But when Senator Ashcroft in
your position aspired to this Cabinet-level appointment, he was
asked about Roe v. Wade, which he disagreed with on a political
basis, and his argument was he would enforce, in his words,
``settled law'' and Roe v. Wade was settled law in America.
    I do not want to put words in your mouth, but could you
articulate in a few words your position about the enforcement
of Roe v. Wade or any other Court decision that you personally
or politically disagree with.
    Judge Gonzales. Thank you, Senator. Of course, the Supreme
Court has recognized the right of privacy in our Constitution,
and in Roe the Court held that that right of privacy includes a
woman's right to choose to have an abortion. A little over a
decade ago, the Court in Casey had an opportunity to revisit
that issue. They declined to overturn Roe and, of course, made
a new standard that any restriction that constituted an undue
burden on the woman's right to choose could not be sustained.
    My judgment is that the Court has had an opportunity, ample
opportunities to look at this issue. It has declined to do so.
As far as I'm concerned, it is the law of the land, and I will
enforce it.
    Senator Durbin. Thank you. Thank you, Judge Gonzales.

 As far as I'm concerned, it is the law of the land, and I will

enforce it.

He is speaking of his role as Attorney General.  He did not speak to whether he felt the Court was correct.  Only that it was settled fact.

Most rightwingers I've read aren't opposed to AG because he's pro-choice but because he has been ambiguous.  They recognize that he has not articulated a clear position on whether HE believes Roe should stand and they don't want to get 'Soutered' again.  Not whether it is law or not and something he as AG must enforce -- I believe that Ashcroft said something similar when he was confirmed for AG.  The question is whether he would be willing to overturn Roe if given a chance.  A chance only a SCOTUS justice could have outside of a Constitutional amendment.

Did you see Meet the Press yesterday? Andrea Mitchell, filling in for Tim Russert, asked this of Senator Specter, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

MS. MITCHELL:  Well, in fact, Senator, in your book, you wrote in your judgment, "the Senate should resist if not refuse, to confirm Supreme Court nominees who refuse to answer questions on fundamental issues.  In voting on whether or not to confirm a nominee; senators should not have to gamble or guess about candidate's philosophy but should be able to judge on the basis of the candidate's expressed views."  That was what you wrote in "Passion for Truth."

The transcript is at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8389296

"Is there any circumstance that would allow you as a justice to rule that abortion is legal?"

This is not the question before the supreme court.  Roe decided that the constitution gurantees a woman the right to abort her fetus.  If Roe were overturned abortion would remain legal as long as no laws were passed making it illegal.  Thus the answer to your question even for an anti Roe judge would be "yes".

That's correct, Robert. The idea would be to get the Bush nominee on record as supporting some abortion. That would muddle the Republican waters tremendously, especially since much of their base cannot not tolerate any abortion. Bush might even be forced to withdraw the nominee.

You need to get out more, Dan. 

Not all Republicans are pro-life, nor do the pro-life ones agree on just what that means.  Just as not all Democrats are not pro-choice.  Party platforms not withstanding.

Stick with your day job, Dan.  You have no future as a political strategist.  There is no great myth to be exposed by some cleaver question that is not already well known.

I consider myself independent.  I can't resist debunking weak arguments when I run across them, sorry if I hurt your feelingss.

My views on economics tend to align with Rs and align with Ds on social issues i.e. I don't care who you fuck or how you fuck them.

Listen, this is a hard left blog so I don't think my views are welcome here (given the stern admonition to trolls), so I try to liimit my comments to occasional rebutts.

You wrote ... "My views on economics tend to align with Rs and align with Ds on social issues i.e. I don't care who you fuck or how you fuck them."

I asume that latter clarification (the part after the "i.e.") applies to both your economic and social views. That's where we differ. Economically, I do care who gets f---ed, so I'm a Democrat!

We all agree that the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is a crucial and important issue.  We all agree that we are not going to like whoever Bush nominates. 

Beyond that: Gonazales seems to be the least objectionable name I have seen mentioned.  Moreover, Bush seems to have a tendency to advance the careers of his friends (unless of course you are Ken "Kenny Boy" Lay and then you are off the Christmas Card List).  If Gonzales wants the appointment and Bush wants to give it to him, I think the friendship trumps pleasing the right wing base!  (Remember he never needs to run again).

As for future appointments: remember when the Chief Justice retires (if he retires?) - Bush has two decisions to make: first whether to nominate a successor who will be chief justice or nominate an associate justice and nominate a sitting member (my money is on Scalia) to be chief justice.  Thus, the potential to make his right wing base happy on two levels. 

I agree.  Gonzi (or Alberto Gonzales) is not a "moderate." 

Its odd that the same people who called him the architech of torture are now supporting him

Plus, nobody raised the issue of the CONFLICT OF INTEREST!  This article discussed it.

Gonzi Is Bush's Latest Ponzi [Scheme] For The Support Court"

The link is at http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog 

On the first point, I wrote: “Criminalize abortion and I suspect there are going to be women whose talents are now much prized in the workforce who are going to choose to live elsewhere.”
Robert, you wrote: "Not unless she is making a political statement. Talented women who get pregnant and want to get rid of their fetus can easily afford a quick trip to a state where abortion is legal to have it taken care of."

My understanding of the demographic data is that upper SES women are more pro-choice than other women and the electorate at large.  Many feel strongly about it.  Many have or will have daughters.  I'll defer to the views of women here on whether, along with a local climate that is hostile to the exercise of abortion rights goes, in their experience, a climate that feels unfriendly to women more broadly.

On the second point I wrote: “Either way my guess is that 10 or 20 years from now the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court appointments will be seen as the visible beginning of the Republican party crackup.”

Robert, you wrote: "I think this is wishful thinking. If abortion were to become a settled issue through legislative debate in the states, it would remove a hot button issue from both major parties. It is unclear to me which party would suffer most."

My impression is that what the socially conservative wing of the Republican party is willing to settle for on the abortion issue is very much at odds with public opinion nationally and in most states.   

If Roe is overturned, in many states the socially conservative wing of the Republican party is likely to impose a litmus test on aspiring gubernatorial nominees and, in some cases, nominees for legislative seats.  

If they do get what they want, their gubernatiorial nominee will face a reduced chance of winning in most states, I would think.  And their nominees for state legislative seats will face a reduced chance of winning where their views on abortion are out of step with those of their constituents (which will not always be the case, of course).

If they don't get what they want, the level of socially conservative Republican commitment to helping pro-choice Republican nominees win in general elections may be much reduced.  Of course, in some states leadership of the socially conservative groups is likely to be pragmatic, in other states not so.

My impression is that many of the anti-choice/prolife Republican party activists are ordinary folks who have never been enamored of the country club wing of the party.  And many of the latter seem to be downright embarrassed to be associated with the former.