Redstate

"Attention White House: Plan on conservatives revolting if you do pick Gonzales."

You have that part right.

I'm far less than happy with his performance as AG, already!

The thought of him in the SC is painful.  And unlike most of my compatriots out here on the leading edge of the right wing, I didn't have a whole lot bad to say about John Ashcroft.

Which means I'm easy.  If Gonzales makes me queasy, he'll provoke a literal storm of excrememt into the fan among most of the folks in this quarter.

This could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.  And this could mean the the Republicans can kiss any hope of gains in Congress in '06 goodbye, too.

As with so many people, the very things that make Bush such an attractive president are the very things that are most frustrating with him.  I'm talking here of his seeming tonedeafness with the polls.  Overall, it's a huge plus, and I think a big reason he was re-elected was the knowledge, even by his detractors, that he would act in the way he felt was right.  

That same quality is coming back to bite with Gonzales...the more I think about Bush's behavior pattern, the more convinced I am that he just might send Gonzales up...after all, people seem to think that in a vacuum, without any outside pressures, Gonzales would be his man...

This is going to be an interesting summer...

As a Democrat, I find Gonzales less odios than the other possibilities. At least he is intelligent.  I had real problems with his finding  the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and his seeming readiness to embrace torture.  There was an interesting diary on Daily Kos today called How to Make a Conservative a Liberal

...I had real problems with his finding  the Geneva Conventions "quaint"...

Another Known Fact. Have you actually read what he said about Geneva?

Bush will appoint a judge who shares the same originalist philosophy of constitutional interpretation shared by Scalia and Thomas. You can count on it because he said he would in both presidential campaigns.

Therefore, if he appoints Gonzales, a very close friend he has worked with intimately for many years, then you can be sure that he is an originalist.

The alarm of many of my christian conservative allies over a dissent in a parental notification case in Texas is misplaced. His objection to requiring parental notification in that case was based soley on the wording of the Texas statute and the exemptions for such notice contained therein.

His dissent was in no way based upon Roe v. Wade.

In  fact, his dissent shows how diligent he is to defer to the specific words of a statute passed by the legislature and, by inference, also to the exact words of the constitution.

Or so Gonzales has hinted.

I am  C-Span fan.

I looked at the tradesports numbers and really didn't find it interesting. There were several surges today, but only among the "name recognition" candidates -- Gonzales, Owen, and Brown rose by 126%, 52%, and 157% respectively. If there were money moving out of other candidates to those I would say that the money may be on to something. However with the exception of Harvey Wilkinson losing about 1/3 of his value no other candidate lost significant value (seems there was a story about Wilkinson's age being disqualifying).

My interpretation of this is that lots of new money came into the market in the last day or so, and the new money went to names that they had heard of. The market made an adjustment, the people who bought Gonzales early made some money, and the market touched a new equilibrium.

This happens frequently to futures markets. Publicizing the market brings people into the names they have heard of. Same thing happened in the tech stock bubble.

But overall I would say this isn't reflecting new information, just new money. If Gonzales continues to climb I will change my mind. However if he stays in the under 30 range -- just familiar names.

You have never been a 16 year old girl inpegnated by a 32 year old man. I have.  In those days abortion was not an option.  Thank GOD it is now.  

That most abortions are by people who get impregnated by men twice their age. I'll bet most of them are immediate family relations, too?

Snark aside, I'd love to hear what possible rationale you'd use for executing the death penalty on an unborn child for someone else's mistake.

If I kill three people tonight, can I have the state execute you for it?

I did not have an abortion.At that time they were not legal in Califonia, and I was a teenager, I had no power.  

How accurate has Tradesports been in the past relative to other political stories like this one?  Does it have a good track record as a predictor?

FWIW, I just don't see Gonzales being nominated so soon after being confirmed as AG.  If Gonzales was nominated, the President would have to fight two confirmation battles instead of just one.

Do you have a source on Gonzales being pro affirmative action? The only hint that I've seen on this is that he chose to soften the administration brief in the Michigan case(Grutter v. Bollinger). To me that speaks more of tactics than conviction. His job was to put information in front of the court for consideration. He changed the administration line from racial considerations couldn't be used to it could be used as a minor factor in conjunction with other factors.

But in a larger sense, as Attorney General he's speaking for President Bush. I don't see him being able to overrule the president on what line the administration will take in a case. Gonzales suggested a change, possibly got agreement from the administration, then put out the brief. I don't remember seeing any contemporaneous comments from the administration that the AG didn't speak for them in Grutter. Indeed, President Bush has always gone out of his way to say AGAG has been extremely loyal in laying out the administration's policies.

So I'm interested in hearing if this is the hint you're referring to, or did I miss another such hint?

Don't have the source, but there was a quote from Gonzales where he commented that he understood there was a place for affirmative action and realized that he had likely benefited from it.  I'm not sure if this had anything to do with the Michigan case or not.

Unless, of course, you intend to imply by this post that if the option had been available to you, you would have had the abortion.

In which case, I'll ask the question again. Let's say I go out and rape a 16 year old tonight. When the police come to my door to exact justice, would it be okay with you if, instead of punishing me, the woman I raped sent them to your house to execute you? Mind you, in this scenario, you have no due process, no chance of appeal, you don't even get to speak a word in your own defense. They just stick some scissors in the back of your head, suck your brains out the hole, drag you out of your house and throw you in the dumpster across the street. Sound cool to you?

It doesn't to a fetus, either.

Can you possibly know what a 16 year old girl feels about being pregnat. The man who got me pegnant was not family.  It was during the summer and I was working for Kirby Vacuum.  I was a telephone solicitor. He finaly showed up at my house to talk to my father (a cop-republican)  Apparently the upshot of the conversation was it was all my fault.  Can you possibly understand my bitterness?  

Can you possibly know what a 16 year old girl feels about being pregnat. The man who got me pegnant was not family.  It was during the summer and I was working for Kirby Vacuum.  I was a telephone solicitor. He finaly showed up at my house to talk to my father (a cop-republican)  Apparently the upshot of the conversation was it was all my fault.  Can you possibly understand my bitterness?

Can you explain to me how any of this (especially the fact that your dad is a ^gasp^ Republican) is the fault of the fetus that you'd like to have seen killed?

Had the option of abortion been available to me as a teenage, I would have taken it.  What was totally appaling to me is that my dad was a cop. He listend to the 32 year old man who had impregnaed me and he gave him a free pass.  What is wrong with that?  

I am totally not understanding that post

I guess by that logic we could prevent such impregnations of 16 year olds altogether by executing all men on their 32nd birthday.

I just wonder if the concept of cause and effect and consequences for irresponsible actions were re-introduced that maybe we would have more responsible behavior? hmmmmmmmmmm

What a concept.

I understand that you believe that abortion is murder, and this is not the site to argue against that position.

Many abortion-rights supporters perceive that abortion opponents don't have compassion for women who are pregnant not by choice, don't favor other measures to minimize the bad choice of abortion, and simply want society to return to a day when unmarried women who get pregnant are ostracized from their communities.

You're not helping with that stereotype.

I did did not kill the vetus in this case. I gave birth to this child and it was adoped.  I did hear back that my child had been taken away from the  adoptive parents because of "abuse"  Well, that did not make me feel real good.

The point here, is that when women seek abortion because of rape, they are punishing an innocent third party (the child) with death for the crime of the rapist.

I seriously cannot fathom that kind of thinking.

I was a very pretty teenager.

The most common reason given, and the one I gave in calling attention to this contract, is that it is a real money market - this contracts are really trading.  However, as this Slate article points out, there are those who think it's not a good predictor, both because of the relatively small size of the investor pool, and also because there is some evidence it overreacts, as it did only election day when the exit polls came out and people fled screaming from the Bush contract...

Okay, it's late, and I can't type well...I meant to say the most common reason given for paying attention to TradeSports, and these contracts, not this contracts - d'oh!

They did well in the Senate races in 2004 but those include much more public data, especially on polling.  Futures markets work best when the bidders are people with useful information.  I don't see any reason to believe that those bidding on this appointment are doing more than reflecting media short lists that are promulgated by "insdiers" like Erick.

For reference, here is the last pre-2004 election post I did on the Senate odds.  Each major race includes the Tradesports odds at the time.  They were rather accurate.

It's disgust. Snark is the way I keep from saying things that will violate the big "profanity is not tolerated" banner, here.

I want to tell you something, I'm commonly known by those who know me in real life as a very compassionate person. I've spent four years in full-time clergy work. I've counseled people with some very serious problems, and further some that have made very serious mistakes - and I generally have no problem being compassionate about those.

But it makes it very, very hard to exhibit the same kind of compassion toward those who have had difficult circumstances in their life when they start talking about wanting to kill innocent bystanders on account of their troubles. That just makes me want to scream.

And if you're expecting someone to give the slightest nod to that kind of behavior or thinking, I'm sorry, you'll have to look elsewhere.

. . .speaking as someone who is pro-choice--and admittedly as an outsider to your family situation--I'd personally say that your father needed a good swift K.I.T.A., aside from whatever abortion related issues were involved.  I'd venture a guess that--rather understandably--you're more ticked off still at your father's insensitive reaction than you are at the fact that you weren't able to get an abortion, and I have to say that--in spite of the fact that I agree with you that abortion should remain a right early in pregnancy--making broadbased policies based on the sad fact that some people are rotten parents is often not a good thing.

What's your position on the federal government forbidding landowners who turn out to have endangered species on their property from using it for otherwise legal purposes without compensating them for the lost value?

And to save you some time and effort, if you think I'm reactionary when it comes to life issues, you just wait and see what I think all of the implications of being the top of the food chain are.

I wish that my step-dad was still alive so that I could disuss this with himm but unfortunately he died in Vietan

On this site, I would not expect to hear approval for a position in favor of legal abortion.

I would expect to hear a different tone toward someone who said they became pregnant as a teenager and gave the baby up for adoption.  If you are seeking to persuade, then think about the situation from that person's point of view.

I can not see Gonzales at all..  If this happens, it will demolish the conservative coalition and fracture the current conservative justice support.

When I was 18 my pretty 17-yr old girlfriend had an abortion of convenience with my blessing. In my heart I knew then that it was wrong but was a strong advocate for "choice" for many years before facing the undeniable fact that a fetus is a developing human life.

Given that fact, while I certainly sympathize with all rape victims, I can't justify the  killing of innocent human life unless it is in self defense as when the mother's life is in danger.

But it should not matter where Gonzales or any court nominee stands on that political issue. The job of a judge is to enforce the constitution as written, which leaves all issues not addressed by it to the states and to the people. The odds are that if Roe is overturned that most states would enact an exception for rape.

Just my guess.

As a man that aided and abetted an abortion  years ago and then had my only natural child die in a miscarriage, I can only imagine the sorrow that a woman who may have aborted and then not received another gift from God.

Enjoy your gift of life. God's ways are not ours and he is working in your life in how you handle the ups and downs. He wants to teach us all to turn to him in this fallen world.

God bless.

As an active Republican I can tell you all that we came out in droves in the 2004 elections for a few simple reasons.  We support the Presidents plans in the War on Terror (get them on their coil before they come here to get us), the Republican social and economic agenda (family, low taxes, trim the social agenda, etc), and to get the courts at least back to the middle.  The last one, pertinent to this discussion, was very important to a lot of Repubicans and a big reason we came out in force.  We are sick and tired of wishy-washy judges ignoring the Constitution and creating new laws based on their own personal preferences.  We want good conservative constructionist appointed to every court, especially the Supreme Court.  We want people who share most or all of our core values.  Gonzales does not appear, from what I've read in the various discussions, to share all of these core values, and that, as far as I'm concerned, makes him a bad choice.

If the Republican Party wants a turn out in 2006 anywhere close to the 2004 numbers they need to be conscious of why we came out in force and meet the expectations of the Party.

This is either going to be a cheerful species-ist song of praise for hunting and barbecue, or a paean in favor of deforestation and toxic waste dumping.

If your case was rape, then you would report it to police and as a mior your parents would know.  If your parents would still not allow an abortion then you can go to a judge.  There are options.

In all other cases it is a lack of morals (cheap free sex) and a lack of responsibility (sex IS a very serious matter).  If you are not mature enough to face the responsibilty of the results of sex, then you shouldn't be having sex.  And if you are irresponsible enough to choose to have sex and get pregnant when you can handle the situation, should you have the right to kill the innocent child growing witin you?  That is a disgustingly selfish thing to think or do.

So I suppose that you don't find the provision of 'scientific instruments' for POWs to be a tad quaint?

I guess we should take Gonazalez out behind the woodshed and beat the cr*p out of him for such disgrageful views.

Hogwash.

The past 5 years has convinced this former democrat that if there is one thing that can be counted on with nearly the same probability as the sun rising in the east, it is that Bush can be counted on to do what he says he will do.

He said he would appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas.

We don't know that Gonzales is not that kind of judge. Bush does.

And certainly, at least not before his nominee, even if Gonzales, testifies and more certainly not before he actually rules in a case would I consider busting up the conservative coalition, and walk the earth with in sack cloth and ashes.

I am a lawyer and I have read the Texas case that all this speculation is based upon and Gonzales's dissent in no way related to Roe. It was soley based on a Texas statute that he was bound to enforce.

The gripe should be with the way the texas legislature wrote the law.

What we want is judges thta read the law as written and apply it.

If he goes by that principle as a supreme court justice in a case challenging Roe as he did in ruling on the Texas law, then he will vote to reverse it and put the  responsibility whether to allow the slaughter on the states.

I think if Bush has a LOT of confidence that AG is in fact a judge in the mold of Thomas and Scalia, he might pick him anyway, and assume that AG will prove himself next summer, and so conservatives will come around by next fall.

Other than about seven years age difference...

Is that Garza has a paper trail.  Gonzales doesn't.

Garza's paper trail indicates that he is an originalist.

Gonzales may or may not be an originalist.  We don't know.

The more I read, the more I think you may be right.  POTUS does know Gonzales, and he knows a lot better than us what his judicial philosophy is.

So if Gonzales is the nominee, I'll give the guy a chance.

I think a lot of conservatives are just perpetually convinced they're getting a knife in the back.  I've always been more of the optimistic variety, so I'm not sure why that is.

cop or not, I shoot the 32-yr old.

But unclear on who's supposed to have been in favor of deforestation  ---  hey MachoNachos, are you, ah, doing some clear-cutting behind our backs?

I converted from democrat to republican in June 2001 having even been a former SC democrat party chairman.

While my main reasons relate to a general epiphany that conservative policies work, I also was impressed with Dubya's straight forward common sense answers especially in the SC primary when he proved the true straight talk came from his lips (obviously improved with Barbara's blood over his Dad's!) and not the McCain bus.

And everytime over the last 5 years when I worried that Bush would not be consistent with his word and principles, some of which doubts were fueled by just the kind of baseless speculation being engaged in now, I always found my fears to be unfounded.

One of the things I have found to be more prevalent in liberals than conservatives is a tendency to always be in a knot over bad things that might happen. This of course robs one of peace due to the good things that have happened and are happening.

If Bush betrays us for the first time in 5 years, there will be plenty of time for ripping him apart with liberal msm allies just too happy to assist.

Reality is not to be found in idle speculations nor in those tv shows the msm networks put on and call non-fiction.

Reality will arrive in due course.

Until then, let us decide that we will actually allow Gonzales to speak about these matters before we decide that Bush has betrayed us.

Thank God we didn't bust up the coalition when Reagan's O'Connor betrayed him and us.

If we had, what would America look like after  the Dukakis-Clinton-Gore era?

I would not be surprised if Dubya saves Gonzales and then make him or Thomas Chief Justice when Rehnquist leaves the court.

The best scenario  would be for Dubya to get to make picks after 2006 as well, so he can blunt some of the lame-duckedness that is inevitable.

I think a Thomas Chief and a Gonzales would just about finish off the Flat Earth Society posing as the party of FDR and JFK.

They're delicious!!!

you might want to short Gonzalez.

He will not be nominated.

I'll give three to one odds for anyone who wants to bet on Gonzalez being nominated.

Keep in mind who Bush appointed as his running mate, when conventional wisdom suggested that he would pick a pro-choice running mate like Colin Powell or George Pataki, or at the very least, someone with a nuanced position on abortion like Tom Ridge.

Bush knows the importance of the initial reaction to his nomination.  He will pick either Owen, Luttig, Brown, Garza, Roberts, Ted Olsen, Martinez, Graham, or Cornyn.  Mark my words.

If Gonzales is to be appointed, I think it's more likely that he will replace O'Connor rather than Renqhuist.

He would save the more "arch-conservative" justice appointment for later, and accomplish a few things:

1.  Avoid alot of Democratic resistance by replacing a known moderate with an expected moderate, conservative with a conservative.
   
2.  Erase memory of Gonzalez appointment from base with the later Renquist slot.
   
3.  Reward loyalty of Gonzales.

. . .that it is wrong in general for society to demand that any one person bear a societal burden that they have not chosen to bear either voluntarily or by acting irresponsibly.  In a nation that very solemnly adopted a constitutional amendment banning involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime, it is certainly wrong to demand that a woman who was made pregnant against her will to carry that pregnancy to term.  One day, it may be possible to relieve a woman of that burden immediately and thereby protect that potential life without imposing upon the woman--but that time has, alas, not yet come.  It is a matter of record that I would take the argument further--but this is the point for me at which the discussion ceases to be a matter of reasonable disagreement on a matter of considerable moral gravity and becomes a question of irreducible human rights.

Gonzales was instrumental in watering down the Administration's briefing given to the Supreme Court during the University of Michigan case.

Incidentally, Sandra Day O'Connor was very influenced by the Admin's brief when she voted to uphold affirmative action.

See this Power Line post.

See also this reference to a correction by The New York Times in public editor Daniel Okrent's column:

Maureen Dowd was still writing that Alberto R. Gonzales ''called the Geneva Conventions 'quaint''' nearly two months after a correction in the news pages noted that Gonzales had specifically applied the term to Geneva provisions about commissary privileges, athletic uniforms and scientific instruments.

Even if Gonzales is a strict constructionist/originalist, it would still be a huge strategic blunder for him to get the nomination. Beyond judicial philosophy and ideology, the biggest mistake to nominating Gonzales is that he would have to recuse himself from all sorts of important cases: Patriot Act, partial-birth abortion, military tribunals for terrorists, etc.

For the same reason, I would oppose John Ashcroft getting the nomination. Even if Ashcroft were Hispanic and 40 years old, nominating someone like him who would have to recuse himself from so many important issues is just plain dumb.

I hate to be the one to say this... but I kind of think this whole story is BS. There are plenty of unfortunate situations in the world, but I doubt hers was one of them.

First, recusals are almost always due to a personal interest concerning one of the parties.

Second, recusals are soley a matter of discretion. I am unaware of justices requiring a justice to recuse.

I do recall that Scalia recused himself on a religion case due to some statement he made in a speech but he didn't have to and given that the margin of defeat was two votes was of no consequence except that,

I think it set a bad precedent. I do not beleive that the justices should perpetuate a fiction that only empty intellectula vessels ar efir to decide cases. Its a fiction anyway and a bad decision that harms the nation at war is much worse than any appearence of impropriety given the gross impropriety of the liberal jurisprudential oligarchy that now rules America.

I believe a review of past justices's contacts approximating Gonzales's with the formation of a policy likely to be reviewed will not discover any precedent for so broad an area of recusal.

From Ponnuru's article:

Federal law is clear: No federal judge, including any Supreme Court justice, may participate in a case if he "has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, advisor or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy." In addition, justices are to recuse themselves "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Given that Gonzales was Bush's White House counsel for the entirety of his first term, and is now attorney general, that means he will have to decline to participate in a lot of important cases.

Tradesports isn't immune to media manipulation, and isn't as valuable here as it is in cases where the population can participate.  Every single news show I've seen since SDO retired have been pimping AGAG.  That is what I believe has pushed his numbers up.  Don't fret.
-bro

1.  You have that right.  THere will be a firestorm among (a) the social conservatives and (b) at least some (hopefully most) free-enterprisers.  
   
2.  (A) The most important question is this: "Where is the stick (because Bush took our carrot)?
   

(B) even more important question is what can the two groups (a & b in sec.1) do? Will they vote for a 3rd party - Libertarian or Constitution Party? If they will not, then Bush knows we are a bunch of wussies!

(C) another important issue is this: Will the 2 groups (a & b) take it out on Jebb Bush?  Maybe this will get Dubya's attention.  I read a prominent pastor of some umbrella group threaten Jebb BUsh, is George Bush nominates Alberto Gonzi Gonzales.  Go, pastor, go~~~

3.  On July 1, 2005 (having a hunch this might happen) I tackled Gonzi's nomination in this artcile -



"Gonzi Is Bush's Latest Ponzi Scheme For Supreme Court"

Link is here

http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog

 

"originalism" is a judicial philosophy.  It is a template, if you will, by which decisions are made.  Having an originalist philosophy does not always guarantee that a person will make originalist choices on particular issues.  That's the rub.  We need a clear indication of where Gonzales stands on particular issues.

In the case where the relief of that burden includes the taking of a human life.

When the relief of the burden becomes too much financially for society at large, you'd better bet the government is not going to enable its dumping on others. Why should it enable it in the case described above?

Re: Thank God we didn't bust up the coalition when Reagan's O'Connor betrayed him and us.

In O'Connor's early years in the Court she was fairly conservative and was often viewed as Rehnquest's ideleogical twin. She moved to the center rather gardually--and that uis something that could happen with any judge, even Garza and Owens. No president is gifted with prescience.

Her tack had become increasingly clear by 1986.

I can't at all understand why people think that Gonzalez is a leading candidate.  He is far more moderate than the conservative base wants.  But he makes up for that by being the worst case scenario for many libs because of Abu Graib.  All the fight with none of the upside.  If it were a case where Gonzalez would sail through but John Roberts would cause a huge fight it woudl be one thing.  But the democrats would fight against AG just as hard as against anyone else so Bush has no reason to go down that road.

The "fetus" is not actually a fetus for at least a few weeks. The fetus is simply a stage of development, much like. toddler, adolescent, and adulthood. I would support abortions of a blastula / gastrula, especially in the case of a rape. It should be a non-issue, imho, and done within 24-48 hours before the fertilized egg even attaches. I have trouble with the idea of aborting a fetus, but in the face of a rape I would undoubtedly support such a measure as emergency contraception. I have three friends who were raped at a young age, and thank god they didn't get pregnant. I may be biased because of my relationships, but regardless I can't condemn rape-related abortions. Why anyone would wait until a fetus develops is beyond me, however.

If you are unwilling to support any form of abortion, though, would you support stronger action against the said rapist in the form of some sort of obligation to the mother, whether it be child support or anything else? I don't mean it as a litmus test, I mean it

I meant it as an open question and just to stimulate some discussion.

The attacks by conservatives are arguably hardening Bush's resolve.  The worst possible way to influence him is to attack his friends or those who have been loyal to him.

The folks who attacked Gonzales should not have done so - they will instead have guaranteed that which they tried to prevent.

Whoever had the birght idea to attack Gonzales ought to be taken out to the woodshed.

Okay, so here's the thing, I'm not going to really like anyone who gets nominated, but I'll give you a piece of advice if you don't like Gonzales, don't attack him with incendiary language. One of the main reasons for the whole filibuster uproar was simply that Bush did not like how Democrats talked about his judges. It is counter-productive and makes him dig in his heels.

I'm not saying don't oppose him if you must, but keep in mind that Bush's prior responses to attacks on people he has personal relationships with is to circle the wagons and defend him at all cost.

Take, for example, this quote from USAToday:

"Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine," Bush told USA Today. "When a friend gets attacked, I don't like it."

Just my two cents, though. Its not my parties call.

I'm not following...

You're saying that Gonzales weakened the administration's brief and influenced O'Connor, but she still cast the deciding vote against the administration? Are you saying she would have voted to outlaw AA if they had held the harder line position? That doesn't sound like O'Connor to me. I'm not following that logic.

To me Gonzales' weakening the administration's position sounds like he knew he was dealt a losing hand (the administration did lose the important of the 2 cases, Grutter) and went looking for middle ground. Negotiation can be a great thing when you're behind.

Also that presupposes that President Bush and the White House folks have no input into the briefs that the AG files with the Court. Not sure I buy that completely either.

that presupposes that President Bush and the White House folks have no input into the briefs that the AG files with the Court

Ummm... Gonzales was White House counsel, not Attorney General, at the time when he took part in crafting the Administration's briefing. The White House definitely does have input on the briefings that the United States files with the Supreme Court; I'm not disputing that at all. The Justice Department, in particular Solicitor General Ted Olson, also played a role in crafting the briefing. Olson wanted to take a much tougher stance against AA, but lost that battle to Gonzales.

And O'Connor did not decide "against" the Administration. The Administration's watered-down briefing (thanks to Gonzales) allowed wiggle room for some AA, hence O'Connor's split decision.

Conservatives slam split race rulings

An originalist philosophy of judicial interpretation usually reduces the choice of decision to ONE, ie the actual meaning of the words of the constitution or statute. What a concept. To emply any other method is to make law from the bench.

Therefore, a judge that favors legal abortion but is an originalist would not find the right to same in a document that does not address it but would be content to argue for the adoption of a law legalizing same in the arena of ideas and convinve a majority of his fellow citizens to elect represenatives to congress or the state legislature to enact same in to law.

Liberals, on the other hand, are unable to get most of their policy preferences agreed to by a a majority and so have resorted to dictatorial fiat by judges. Moreover, many judges on the bench succumb to the temptation to play God.

The one sure way to cure this disease is for Congress to act unbde Article III and restrict the courts jurisdiction to divorces of ambassadors!!

Someone tried to manipulate Tradesports 3 times during the Presidential debates.

However, in the long run, Tradesports was right.

So, let's see how long will Gonzi's futures trade this high.

Lastly, if Bush appoints Gonzi the conservatives and libertarians ought to punish him! Big time.

The Supremes are more important that the COngress and the President together.

Good point on the job -- WH counsel instead of AG.

But from the link you provided, it looks like Gonzales was supporting the president.

President Bush applauded the dual rulings, saying they recognize the value of diversity on college campuses.

Maybe it's not Gonzales that people should be tarring and feathering on this issue. How much blame can you put on the crafter of a brief when it seems to accurately reflect the opinions of the boss?

I also recall that Erick mentioned last week that the White House would float a name out over the weekend to gauge reaction.  It appears that name was Gonzales.

I suspect that Karl Rove had Bush back off from waging a full-scale attack on AA.

Incidentally, Bush's brother Jeb has a far better record on AA. I wish W would learn a thing or two from his little brother.

that originalism, as we now understand it, is an unlikely philosophy for a person to hold if he/she agrees with the reasoning in Roe.  Alas, judges are not always consistent (much like the rest of us).

I am not recommending that a we ask nominees directly: Do you support Roe? Do you support gay marriage?  No I am saying we need to look at prior cases they have judges concerning these issues.

I would ask whether they think specific prior cases were properly supported by the constitution as they interpret it and ask them thier judicial interpretation philosophy.

We're not talking here about asking a potencial fiance if they are a vigin and we need to have outr nominees go up there and in opening statement let the commitee know they are not going to play word games. They should even defend Bork!!

Reagan won 98? states with unabashed, unapoligetic conservatism and the argument that the people and not courts should decide whether Baby Jesus can be displayed on the City Hall lawn!!! Its a winner and its honest. the mystery and god-like respect for courts was always misplaced and after the last 40-60 years of a tyrannical oligarchy, its time to pioint out the emperors have no clothes.

I do not agree with the unilateral gentlemanly disamament engaged in since Roe that treats judicial nominees as Gods.

No, don't ask how they would rule on a potential issue in the future, but we need to bust thru this rhetoric and tell the American people the whole story about how judges have usurped the people's power to approve of the laws they live under.

If we go up there and have our nominee look like he he's hiding the truth we can lose.

Hypothetical: Let's say Gonzales personally favors leagl abortion in some circumstances and evn some affirmative action let him say so and then say that it is up to voters and legislatures to decide thsoe issues. That his job as a judge is to appkly the law as written, and that, as written, abortion is not mentioned in the constitution and therefore is left to the states and that the 14th amendment and the 1964 civil rights act prohibits discrimination on race. That as a voter he might support changing the law the proper way, thru elections.

That is a winner. What do you think?

But I hope not. As we know, "clear" federal law is very often clouded up and I am unaware of such a mass retreat by a judge.

Have you ever heard of members of the court forcing a colleague to recuse or a case being reversed due to subsequent discovery of same?

Or is it left solely to the judhes discretion?

won't be the pick, but like I said before, he is a good fodder man. It will be Luttig, and everyon will say, "not a surprise".

"If you are not mature enough to face the responsibilty of the results of sex, then you shouldn't be having sex."

Amen

And why should the fetus be punished for your irresponsibility?

Abbreviated History Of Abortion Law In California

There was a very short window from 1957 to 1967 in which her story might* have been the case in California but since then (and even pre-Roe) there has been an exception for rape, incest, and in cases where it would "gravely impair the physical or mental health" of the mother.

* The info's coming from Planned Parenthood so I am assuming if there is any misrepresentation, it will be on the side of making the law look more "draconian" than it was rather than the other way around.  

Like I said, that was a different matter.  In the case of the election, that was a participatory event, where others opinions mattered, and tradesports reflect those opinions.  When it comes to other things where their opinions do not influence the outcome, like sports, I'd bet they are no better than Vegas.
-bro

wrote the brief.

I certainly do not get it. Let's say you're a rapist.  By lethal force you deposit your seed in a woman's body.  Cops arrest you. You're sent to death row.  Good deal.  The victim is pregnant. Your seed lives in her body. She hates it. She feels violated by it. She wants to forget you.  But the government says no way -- that rapist has a right to keep his seed in your her body,  and she has give birth to that child and nurture it, or at least nurture it until birth, give it up, and spend the rest of her days knowing that she and the rapist share parenthood, the most sacred bond a man and a woman can share. This I fear I will never understand, but I would appeciate an explanation. While you're at it please explain why exactly the same rule should be in force if the rapist is the woman's father.

98 states in the Union.  Also, nominees probably won't answer questions about prior cases they did not actually judge themselves.  The rest of your post I agree with (I think).