If this is truly the case and not just a blind then you’re not as attuned to the Hill and the inside the beltway crowd as I’d thought, Bricker.
The whole ‘extraordinary circumstances’ thing was a beard from the get-go…it was meant to buy time and save the big fight for just this occassio…a Supreme Court nomination. Anything else was just PR and you shouldn’t have believed it.
You can count on that.
Really? Why? Who is the last President that appointed a “flaming liberal” to the Court? Seems to me that there are many experienced judges with mainstream judicial philosophies who could be appointed. Those judges would be quickly confirmed.
But Bush’s supporters won’t be happy unless he appoints a right wing activist judge. So that is who he will appoint.
Reserve this sort of remark for the BBQ Pit. Do not post it in GD.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
And it’s not the “socially conservative” part that this slightly-left-libertarian doesn’t like. It’s that they feel they can legislate those views from the bench.
Honestly, as someone who’s about as close to Constitutionally moderate as they come, the idea that conservative judges are only interested in the Constitution while liberal judges are only interested in “legislating from the bench” strikes me as being entirely ridiculous.
And the senate has no particular obligation to confirm his nomination.
Please define what you consider “socially liberal views”. Because I’m gonna go all the way out on this oh-so-precarious limb and say that views are precisely what will determine whether or not a given nominee is cleared.
And I’ll stay out here and imagine that if said justice were to legislate “socially conservative” views from the bench, it would be just ducky.
Waste
from SCOTUS - Seat Open Fortunately, Evil Captor is already here, ready to contain him.
Then you haven’t been paying attention.
Conservative judges are much more likely to stick to the constitution than liberal judges. Take abortion: A conservative judge wouldn’t want to outlaw abortion. He would simply want to overturn Roe v Wade and leave the matter to the states to decide, since the issue isn’t addressed in the constitution.
The battle isn’t over “legal abortion” vs “illegal abortion”. It’s over whether or not the court even has the right to decide the issue. Conservatives are on the side of the constitution on this and many other issues.
Despite your use of the imperial “We,” I suspect that many conservatives do in fact dislike judges with socially liberal views. I can give you plenty of examples of conservatives legislating from the bench. Do you object to that? Or do you conservatives only care if the “legislation” reflects a policy choice with which you disagree?
Let’s say that this is not the only vacancy in the next couple of years. Suppose that Rehnquist dies or decides he must step down. Do the Democrats really want to use their one shot at an associate justice?
Maybe personally, but that hardly matters if they aren’t going to legislate our rights away with them. 
Of course I would object to that. However, it’s clear that this isn’t nearly as much of a problem as liberals legislating from the bench. There’s no conservative equivilent of the 7th circuit court of appeals.
Well, that isn’t as condescending as it is wrong.
IF conservatives were so concerned about constitutional rights, we’d have as many of them now as we did 5 years ago, if not more. And yet, that’s not the case, now is it?
" Their one shot"? :dubious: As I understand it, the [del]wimps who I believe are still better then republicans[/del] democrats compromised by saying they will philibuster when there are extraordinary circumstances, not once more only, and that is it.
Yep, In interviews right afterwards, Senators from both parties made it clear that they had not mapped out precisely what that phrase meant.
I strongly suspect that we’ll see an Hispanic nominated, although I’m not sure which of Bush’s favorites will get the nod.
And, I might add, on the side of God.
Isn’t it kind of obligatory that we’ll see a woman nominated? Just as, if Clarence Thomas resigned, his successor would have to be black.
How about giving some examples of liberals “legislating from the bench?”
The Dems best hope here is to give the OK to an apparent conservative whose views are somewhat murky and unarticulated on some key issues. This seemed to work wonders with Souter. I don’t know how effective that will be given the mistakes Republicans have made in the past with their ‘conservative’ nominees to the Court.
I want to see a strong jurist nominated. I will puke if someone like Ashcroft gets the nod, and I wouldn’t be thrilled with Gonzales. I do accept that it is best to preserve the right of each President to name a jurist within reason and I wouldn’t want to see the Dems obstruct any and all potential nominees.
In short, I am withholding judgement at this point. I hope we see a sane choice, and if we do I would hope the Dems wouldn’t cry ‘extraordinary circumstances’.
What are you talking about?
I forgot to add…I’m especially interested in seeing examples of liberal judges “legislating our rights away.”