|
|
Post by phil on Oct 27, 2005 9:39:28 GMT -5
CORRECTION : Make that a real ULTRA-conservative ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Oct 27, 2005 10:51:06 GMT -5
So who's next?
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 27, 2005 10:58:30 GMT -5
Judge Judy ... ??
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Oct 27, 2005 11:06:04 GMT -5
Olsen! Olsen! Olsen!
But in reality ... keep track of the conservative names that pundits throw around. Whoever they DON'T mention - that'll be who it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Oct 27, 2005 11:45:28 GMT -5
I don't know. Certainly last time around the pundits were all wrong. But that was only because Bush came completely out of nowhere by nominating his personal lawyer/cheerleader. The backlash was pretty extreme, especially from his base, so I think this time around he might try someone a little more obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Oct 27, 2005 14:12:10 GMT -5
It's sort of astonishing how this fringe minority has a complete stranglehold over this country's political future.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Oct 27, 2005 14:30:33 GMT -5
I don't know. Certainly last time around the pundits were all wrong. But that was only because Bush came completely out of nowhere by nominating his personal lawyer/cheerleader. The backlash was pretty extreme, especially from his base, so I think this time around he might try someone a little more obvious. But can you really think of ANYtime the pundits have really been right? With Roberts, they were totally off and never mentioned his name. The only time they're ever right is if they all have a leak telling them what is going to happen ... and that's not really predicting anything. That's just reporting unsourced. Last night, all the pundits were saying that the speeches from Meiers that had just come out would not make a difference. As she was speaking to Bush, they were saying the nomination was solid. The only people who can get away with being wrong all the time more than weathermen are political pundits ... oh, and the courtroom pundits who are consistently 100% about EVERY verdict. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Oct 27, 2005 15:31:08 GMT -5
There has been a lot of talk here and elsewhere about the apparent hold the Christian Right has on our government and the Bush administration right now. I believe that the events of today, with Harriet Meiers name being withdrawn from Supreme Court consideration, that myth has been dispelled.
Unlike John Roberts, Harriet Meiers was a nomination made to make the Christian right happy. She was not being sold on her knowledge of the Constitution. She was being sold as an evangelical Christian (repeatedly until Bush got called on it) who would vote as the Christian right wanted on abortion. If you look at the immediate reaction after her nomination was made, that is evident. Some of her most vocal supporters came from the Christian right - primarily James Dobson. And where did her most vocal criticism come from? Not from Democrats. Harry Reid even declared her a great nomination. Her greatest criticism came from the non-Christian right portion of the Republican party. It came from the people who are fundamentally conservative. Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved, David Frum, and Bill Kristol are NOT Fundamentalist Christians. Heck, among that group, you've got three Jewish men and a Catholic. They were dead against her nomination because she was not conservative in her method of interpreting the Constitution, and that is what they considered to be the most important.
Obviously, with Meiers name being withdrawn, the Christian Conservative movement has failed, and the fundamentally conservative wing of the party has won. If the Religious Right truly had the hold on the GOP and the Bush administration that is claimed, Meiers would still be prepping for her confirmation hearings. And since the majority in the Senate is Republican, that confirmation would be a shoo-in if the myth of the Christian right was true.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Oct 27, 2005 17:28:22 GMT -5
This is contentious at best, and dispels absolutely nothing. Insofar as Dobson might have liked Miers for her fundamentalist views (whatever they might have been), Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council had expressed doubts about the nomination. Dobson himself expressed doubt on the third day after the announcement of Miers's nomination, when he used his own talk show to confess to an "agonized heart" and to pray about whether he had made the right decision with his early endorsement. Many Christians were unsure about Miers's fundamentalist credentials, and were simply unwilling to just trust GWB. I don't agree with their worldview, but I can't say I blame them.
Who GWB nominates next will say as much about the hold the Fundamentalists have on the administration as did the nomination of Harriet Miers. Not to mention the fact that, at most basic level, her very nomination (if what Chrisfan says is true) betrays a debt to the Fundamentalist movement (why else would he nominate her). Her resignation does not dispel anything beyond the idea that she might have been professionally qualified to be a justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Oct 27, 2005 17:42:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Oct 27, 2005 17:44:03 GMT -5
And please, please, everyone, read the linked article. It''s worth the time, trust me.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Oct 27, 2005 20:04:08 GMT -5
This may come to you as a shock, but God is not a Republican!
Without a doubt the best part of the above article.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Oct 28, 2005 10:59:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by poseidon on Oct 31, 2005 13:00:58 GMT -5
From The Associated Press:
"Updated: 11:13 a.m. ET Oct. 31, 2005
WASHINGTON - President Bush, stung by the rejection of his first choice, on Monday nominated conservative appeals court judge Samuel Alito to replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in a bid to reshape the Supreme Court and mollify his political base.
“Judge Alito has served with distinction on that court for 15 years, and now has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years,” Bush said, drawing an unspoken contrast to his first choice, Harriet Miers."
Oh please, spare me. The Miers nomination was never expected to go thru. Bush and party/staff fully never expected Miers to be confirmed by the Senate as a S.C. Justice. It's pitiable how obvious the nomination really was. The Miers nomination (and subsequent declining by Miers of) was an obvious play, and desperate move by the Bush administration to quell any misnotions (hah) of extreme conservative-ness. A futile attempt to sway and placate the public (thats you and I folks) of: oh, look-at-me I Mr. President playing the nice and thoughtful guy and not only nominating a woman, but most likely a liberal woman. I mean...she is a jew don't-cha-know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Oct 31, 2005 13:11:32 GMT -5
A futile attempt to sway and placate the public (thats you and I folks) of: oh, look-at-me I Mr. President playing the nice and thoughtful guy and not only nominating a woman, but most likely a liberable woman. I mean...she is a jew don't-cha-know.Anyone who thought that Harriet Miers was likely a "liberable" (liberal?) woman was off the deep end. There was some slim chance that she might have been a semi-moderate conservative, but even that struck me as a fool's prayer. She was also a former catholic who converted to evangelical protestantism. I have no idea where you got the jewish thing from. As for Alito.... all I can say is, John Paul Stevens, please don't die. Presuming Alito's confirmation, just to play swami for a minute, here's where the Court will likely fall on abortion and affirmative action - issues where o'connor was often a swing voter: Pro- Roeginsburg breyer stevens souter kennedy (albeit more shakily, especially after stenberg v. carhart, and definitely more willing to accept restrictions short of prohibition Definitely anti- Roescalia thomas Almost definitely anti- Roealito Probably anti- Roeroberts So Roe should survive alito and roberts - but a third nomination for bush could tip the balance. There is also some speculation that kennedy has had a change of heart and wishes he hadn't voted with the majority in planned parenthood v. casey - i'm not sure i really buy this. I think Roe will hang on by the barest of margins - but i also think partial birth abortion bans will almost certainly be upheld, since kennedy dissented in stenberg v carhart. Affirmative Action reliably pro-AA ginsburg souter breyer stevens reliably anti-AA scalia thomas kennedy probably anti-AA roberts alito I think it's safe to assume AA will be a dead letter with this court. Kennedy is as unbending on this as Scalia. O'Connor's narrowly pro-AA vote in Grutter was highly unexpected since she is actually the justice who wrote the majority opinion for the two major, precedent-setting anti-AA cases until then - Croson and Adarand. Without her, the sudden pro-AA majority evaporates. This analysis brought to you courtesy of Our Lady of Procrastination  Cheers, M |
|
