So instead of a blatant right-wing ideologue, we should settle for a stealth right-wing ideologue (who still has several thousand papers vanish under mysterious circumstances)?
Roberts is a perfect right wing heir to Rehnquist that won’t change the balance of the court.
Now, lets see who his new moderate is for O’Connor. :rolleyes:
Were you under the impression that the philosophical composition of the Supreme Court is sacrosanct, and that a president is supposed to match liberal for liberal, conservative for conservative?
Bush is going to nominate another conservative. He’s a conservative guy, and the people who voted for him expect it. You would no more expect Bush to nominate a liberal than you would have expected Clinton to nominate a conservative.
And if the nominee is qualified and has no obvious skeletons in the closet, that person will be confirmed. So get used to the fact that the court is going to move slightly to the right.
Can’t we just put a sticky on a thread titled “President Bush makes a decision. Bitch about it here?” I’m no fan of the guy, but this sort of thing is getting a bit hard to take, not to mention predictable. I fully expect to see a pit thread about President Bushs choice of breakfast cereal.
How much do we really have to pit about Roberts other than his being chosen by Bush? Do we have anything yet? Is there anything to flesh out this reflexive pitting?
O’Connor is in no way a liberal. I expect a conservative to come from Bush for his second choice. I also expect it to be a moderate conservative.
Personally, I have a feeling we’re going to see a recess appointment at some point in the near future. Politically, the Democrats have nothing to lose and everything to gain by sticking to their guns and demanding a conservative.
That last conservative should say moderate.
Damn you, Sam, the neocon subliminal brainwaves are working! 
Oh come on, have you not been paying attention? He’s a stealth conservative! The very fact that we can’t prove he’s a raving conservative proves it!
Why? And what’s a “moderate conservative” justice anyway?
Bush has always said he’d appoint justices like Scalia and Thomas. This is no secret. Why should he appoint a “moderate conservative” if he doesn’t think that’s the right judicial philosophy?
There does seem to be this assumption that the court has to be “balanced”. But if Kerry had won, and Scalia had died, would you expect him to nominate a conservative replacement? After all, the balance must be maintained, right?
I think O’Connor is a fine example.
Bush apparently forgot that strict constructionism is what gaves us rulings like Dred Scott. That’s the biggest reason why.
Let the person have all the conservative views they like, as long they understand that like everyone, the Founders were human.
Would I hope he would? Yes. I feel the country is best served by a balanced court. Would he likely do it? Probably not, and that’s a damned shame.
This puts Bush in a bind. He has to appoint someone who is not just conservative, but a reliable activist in favor of the religious right. The whole reason the RR has been so solidly behind the Republicans in recent years is because they expected them to do what they wanted when this moment came, and if Bush puts anyone on the court who is less than 100% reliable for them, you’ll see a lot of them stay home or find a third party in the next election.
I predict Roberts will turn out to be such a reliable activist–not because of anything that I know about him, but because it doesn’t make sense for Bush to have picked someone who wouldn’t be. It’s also why the RR was solidly against Gonzales; he seems to be conservative enough, but he’s been willing to call bullshit on blatant examples of right-wing activism in the past. They can’t risk that.
The bind is that I’m not sure he has the political capital to get two such nominees through confirmation right now. He is almost certainly going to have to engage in some degree of compromise, and any hint whatsoever of compromise will send the Dobson/Falwell/Robertson/Perkins crowd running for the exits. If you thought Nader did some damage to Gore, wait until they get Roy Moore or some similar nutbar to run on the Jeebus Party ticket after they decide Bush isn’t Christian enough for them.
Look, guys, this is (roughly, IANAL) how it works:
To replace a Chief Justice, you have two options:
- Nominate an Associate Justice to fill that spot, and someone else as the Associate Justice.
- Nominate someone outside the Court as the CJ.
Option 1 requires two sets of confirmation hearings, and option 2 requires one.
If he’s got nothing to hide, why have several thousand pages of his writings mysteriously disappeared from the Reagan Library archives?
Because they detail his connection to Roswell, CIA black helicopters, and the secret shadow government of the freemasons?
Because the pages in question are journal entries about kicking puppies, eating babies, and going to Backstreet Boys concerts?
Because they contain proof that John Roberts is The Grapist?
Do we have anything even hinting at these papers being bad other than that they have disappeared?
What, the ones stored under a different letter code that were found last week? You’re right, they were probably typed by kittens in sweatshops on stolen hanging chads in a really small font just to piss off sight-impaired liberals. They haven’t denied it, after all; more proof!
Diebold!
Conspiracy!
Stealth!
Blowjob!
Fuck, wrong President. Sorry, got a bit carried away. Don’t you just hate it when you mix and match your partisan froth? In any case, rjung, I truly believe that you have a rock-solid anti-Roberts case here. You should definitely start blogging on this right now. Freedom is at stake!
Oh, I see you already have. Under the heading “George W. Bus (sic) is a certified idiot”, no less. That’s beautiful, man. Really; I shed a tiny tear.
Actually, it’s three for option one and two for option two. A direct replacement for the Chief Justice requires one hearing, plus the one for the Associate Justice. If he promotes from within he has the CJ hearing and then two AJ hearings (one for each of the two new candidates).
That’s just too much to deal with right now, and it’s far too much political exposure.
Maybe Sandy Berger was reviewing them.
Whoa, just think of the late fees!
President Bush did it. Therefore, it is wrong, pig-headed and/or evil.
For those of you lacking a sarcasm gene, the above is a clear example of sarcasm.
If that’s the case, he can keep 'em. Nasty.
Despite the politics, I think it’s bad form. It’s like promoting a Private First Class to Commandant, doesn’t make a mess of sense, but when you’re trying to build a legacy…