I wonder, though, if Bush wants to have to go thru yet another Attorney General confirmation process, when Gonzales’ hearings are still as fresh as cow poop in the afternoon. Your analysis is a good one, I’ll agree, but that one odd puzzle piece makes me not so sure. Perhaps your 5% uncertainty is enough to cover that angle.
Oh, there’s still questions. I would assert that its Gonzo for now, barring some unforseen revelation. What I wonder about is the previously unseen willingness of GeeDubya to offer his x-treme supporters the digital salute. They figure (rightly, in my estimation) that he owes them his electoral butt. I figure he would pander to them if he thought he could get away with it, what with all that massive political capital he’s got (snicker).
Someone told him he can’t. Wonder who? Or maybe more importantly, someone told him that maybe he could, but would leave them holding the bag when that big ol’ wheel turns round again. Doesn’t look like a lot of guys are looking forward to running on a platform of “GeeDubya’s Best Friend!”.
The fact that we generally agree to live by it, and that any other definition has much less popular support than it. It’s how multicultural democratic societies work.
Which is what this is all about - the topic of abortion has been the subject of intense public debate for a damn long time, enough for social mores to have coalesced around the current status. Our social standards have settled on a woman having the ultimate right to control over her own body, the vehement disagreements of some who’d naturally prefer their own morality to have triumphed instead notwithstanding.
The battleground for a moral debate is and should be in our hearts, not the courts or the legislative or executive branches of government. One position has established dominance, and the other has been considered and rejected by the majority. The losers of the moral debate are not entitled to overturn the result by gaining short-lived control over a government institution and forcing the majority to live by a morality that they have already rejected. For a court to do so, as this nomination threatens, would be the dreaded Judicial Activism in its purest form, would it not? I do, btw, tire of asking you that only to be ignored.
I wouldn’t say “agree to” so much as “are resigned to.” I don’t think the current trimester/viability guideline has ever been popular with anyone, and certainly there has never been anything resembling a popular vote on the subject, where that has been the line of demarcation.
I did say “generally”, not “universally”. Certainly not everyone is happy with it, and certainly other cultures in other times have used different definitions with equal validity on the same basis. But we have to use something, and that’s the one the most of us can live with.
I’m sure you’ve all heard about this, but what the hell, it’s kind of funny (if it weren’t so serious a matter): Wonkette says Drudges says Novak says Rehnquist is retiring. Announcement a couple of hours ago. Or not.
When in doubt, follow the money:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/07/AR2005070702149.html
The spread on Gonzalez is widening, in a sense. He opened at 6to 5 and now he’s a 5 to 9 favorite.
Rehnquist rumored resigned.
query:will there be a daily double? I’d box gonzales with one woman, one white man, one african american and no jew.
The right’s problem with Gonzales is that he was often at odds with the conservative activism of Priscilla Owen during their brief time together on the Texas Supreme Court, and he wasn’t afraid to call it such. PFAW has a roundup here:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1726
They can’t have someone who is willing to accuse one of their own of activism–that’s what liberals do.
That may refer to the occasion of their public disagreement about FDR. Judge Owen is of the conventional Texas conservative view, that FDR was a red-eyed firebreathing Leninist, whereas Mr. Gonzales holds the opinion that FDR was merely a calm and reflective Socialist, of the Norman Thomas variety. Pinkish attitudes like this are enough to raise eyebrows amongst Texas conservatives, such notions are suspect.
Most Americans don’t realize Texas’ true position on our political landscape, they think “conservative” means the same thing in Houston as it does in New York. This is a charming innocence. Let the Gentle Reader digest any of the Texas Republican Party platforms of years past, he will be amused, entertained, so long as the dread truth doesn’t interfere: these people are perfectly serious. They haven’t the slightest awareness of post-modernist irony, if they had, they would pass a law against it.
The Texas conservative regards himself as progressive for having advanced past the Divine Right of Kings to embrace the Divine Right of Money, it is more populist, more democratic. Texas is the Saudi Arabia of America, the native home of the more extreme capitalist sects.
In Texas a man may be charged and convicted of murder, capital murder, while his attorney naps. Literally. They will examine the situation, and confirm the conviction, on the grounds that the attorney was most likely not asleep for any of the really important parts of the trial, and was no doubt exhausted by his exertions on behalf of a client so obviously guilty. The meddlesome impositions of Northern Liberals demand that the guilty party (or the “defendent”, as they insist on callling him) must be provided with a lawyer, but there is no original text that demands a good lawyer! A well-rested lawyer should be quite good enough for someone who can’t afford better, charity is not to be strained providing luxuries to the undeserving.
We are advised that Mr. Gonzales is considered a “moderate conservative” in his native Texas. This places him just to the left of Cotton Mather. A great many of our political woes and calamities have their roots in Texas. I retain an unreasoning affection for my native state, and an entirely sensible affection for my adopted Minnesota. One or the other should secede. Loyalty to my country suggests Texas.
OTOH (as long as we’re handicapping), business groups are pushing Bush to choose a pro-business SC judge.
So, we have $$$ vs. Jesus. Guess which will win. :dubious:
inho, Bush will please the Roe vs Wade supporters by pushing a potential Supreme Court Justice who will not vote to eradicate that law.
But when he chooses a person to replace Rehnquist he will pick a conservative individua who will vote to eliminate Roe vs. Wade.
I wouldn’t have believed that had I not found it here.
Somehow, to me, the likelihood of Dubya appointing a woman to anything seems as likely as the Seattle Mariners winning the Series.
Judge Sheindlin certainly has the legal expertise, but somehow that doesn’t seem to be a criterion with conservative Republicans…
FWIW, there is nothing in the Constitutioin or federal statutes that requires that a federal judge at any level have a law degree. (Interestingly enough, Clarence Darrow did not have one either.)
Not as cut and dried as it may appear. The devotees of the Mammonite Church, worshippers of the Dollar Almighty, have gotten a lot of mileage pretending that thier agenda and that of the God Goons are identical. They’re not, of course, Mr. Dobson wants to ban Brittany Spears perky little titties, Time Warner wants to sell them. But it is a useful spot of hypocrisy. The greedy have enough Sunday School larnin’ to know they’ve already bought their ticket on the Hellbound Train, so a bit of minor blasphemy is of little consequence.
But your average appellate court denizen is fairly sharp, sharp enough to examine his/her toast and determine which side is buttered. If they harbor any ambitions, they will quickly realize that their options are optimized if they tailor their opinions so that they are two! two! two mints in one!
I’m going to reiterate that I think the nomination will be Gonzales, that he will be attacked by both left and right, will surprise everyone by his answers before the Judiciary Committee, and will ultimately be confirmed, probably by a fairly close vote (64-36 or something in that range).
And given that it is Bush-43 nominating him, I think that he will probably be the best feasible candidate. (There may be ones that some of us would like better to see nominated, but they won’t suit Bush. But given the alternatives that would suit him, I think that Gonzales’ll be quite good at the job.)
Bush is announcing the nominee tonight (Tuesday) at 9:00 EST, so gitcher last licks in!
My money is on Clement. Pro-business who will be nominated in the breeze.
Owen.
oops- I meant confirmed in a breeze.
Jerome Howard
They allege to have a source. Hmm.
I’m predicting Gonzales. Why? Because he’s a friend of Bush’s and Bush likes his friends to prosper.