posted
Some might be interested in the text of the email Pat Leahy wrote to Democracy for America, the group that Howard Dean started when he lost his presidential bid.
DFA sends out practically daily emails to its members to both inform and try to wrangle money out of them. I signed up, because it was right after the primaries, and I had worked on the local Dean campaign, and they won't take me off the mailing list.
It's a long letter though, so I'll post some of the highlights. The email is entitled "The Senate is Not a Rubber Stamp":
quote: This is a momentous time in our nation's history. The next justice will have enormous influence on a woman's medical decisions, the rights of workers and consumers, the civil and privacy rights of us all, the enforcement of our environmental laws, how our elections are conducted, and nearly every other aspect of our lives.
We cannot allow the independence of our courts to be threatened by a judicial activist who places personal ideology above the law. The Supreme Court is no place for fringe judges. And the Senate is not a rubber stamp for any president's nominations.
America must maintain separate but equal branches of government. Neither the legislature, nor the judiciary, should be subjugated to the will of any president - or to the loudest wing of any political party In recent years, the President has chosen a path of confrontation rather than consultation with the Senate.
I voted against Janice Rogers Brown, a judge quoted telling conservative audiences that the New Deal "mark[ed] the triumph of our own socialist revolution," and that elderly Americans who depend on Social Security "blithely cannibalize their grandchildren."
I voted against Priscilla Owen, a judge who inserts her opinions into the law so freely that President Bush's own attorney general once called her behavior "unconscionable ... judicial activism."
President Bush will decide whether there will be a divisive or unifying process and nomination. If consensus is a goal, bipartisan consultation will help achieve it. I believe that is what the American people want and what they deserve. The President can unite the nation and the Senate with his choice, or he can once again divide us.
If the President chooses a Supreme Court nominee because of that nominee's ideological fervor or record of activism in the hope that he or she will deliver political victories, the President will have done so knowing that he is again choosing the path of confrontation. He will do so knowing that we will once again be forced to defend our belief that the Supreme Court should not be an arm of either political party. It belongs to all Americans.
The President and Republican leaders have a choice: choose a battle that divides America, or seek a middle ground with a nominee we all can trust to fairly interpret and uphold the Constitution and the law. Let the Senators who will make this important decision know that America doesn't want us to rubber stamp the President's nominee.
quote:He will do so knowing that we will once again be forced to defend our belief that the Supreme Court should not be an arm of either political party. It belongs to all Americans.
I'd have lot more sympathy with that if every single nominee who opposed Roe v. Wade wasn't automatically labeled too extreme.
I guess the Supreme Court is only supposed to be an arm of NARAL, huh?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush wants to appoint Gonzales. First Latino, historic; he's personally close to him, which is pretty much #1 requirement for being high up in the Administration. Politically it's a bad move for two reasons:
1) It alienates the base: evangelical Christians don't like Gonzales' positions on abortion. (See Texas Supreme Court decisions that ruled in favor of Roe v. Wade and against parental notification.)
2) The Democrats will put Gonzales (and Bush) on trial for war crimes. (See this thread; it's evidence.
So does Bush have the balls? Odds are, probably. Second choice is J. Michael Luttig, a D.C. Circuit Court judge. Ultra, ultra conservative. Dems would hate him. Evangelicals would love him.
Third choice, John Roberts. Strongly conservative but considered evenhanded. Most easily confirmable.
That's the word on the streets in DC, anyway.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gonzales is a non-starter. That's why he was appointed AG - so Bush wouldn't have to consider him for SCOTUS.
If Bush wanted to appoint him, he wouldn't have made him AG. He knew about Rehnquist's illness at the time; this wasn't unexpected.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like it: at least they're not trying to hide their intentions behind "moderation." They are, of course, asking a potential judge to commit to how they'll rule in the future. I'd like to get such a commitment, too, although going the other way.
But it's probably inappropriate for any candidate to do so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No more than miniscule group of politicians would try to try the president or any non-military figure for war crimes.
For one thing, no matter what advice gonzales gave, he wasn't the one who implemented any of it. It was a research piece on possible avenues, which everyone does, much as some might disagree with his opinions.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Figuratively speaking, fugu. And yes, way more than a handful would object to Gonzales for that reason, despite the fact that he was writing on behalf of the government, not on behalf of himself.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In reading through the list of possible nominees that the Washington Post has listed, I have to say that most of them sound reasonable and should pass without too much problem.
Gonzalez would tick me off, but at least on the Supreme Court he'd only be one voice in several whereas as AG he weilds incredible power with very little oversight.
I'm not sure where I'd rather have him, if he has to be there. I mean, the damage he could do as AG is somewhat limited by the fact that he'll probably be replaced by the next President. The damage he could do as a Supreme Court justice is limited by the need to be part of a majority on any particular issue, and to have the decision be somewhat reasonable.
Ah well.
I'm hoping for the other nominees to SCOTUS anyway.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, would that be because he's not conservative enough? Probably wouldn't vote to dismantle abortion rights? Or what?
The pundits on the sunday news shows all mentioned that many conservative groups are against Gonzalez, mainly because of abortion rights IIRC.
Although I agreed with Dag's reasoning above that Gonzalez' appointment as AG might signal that Bush wouldn't appoint him to SCOTUS, I'm starting to have doubts, for several reasons.
1)He's very close personally to the President, something Bush values tremendously.
2)He's a minority, which will make it harder for Dems to oppose him
3)He's just been through a Senate confirmation hearing, which would make another hearing easier. I wonder if in new hearings he'd be held to the fire more on the torture memos than he was for his AG hearings?
I know nothing about his judicial philosophy, beyond the fact that he doesn't seem conservative enough for some, which is a plus for me.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, if you look at the list of folks that the WP says are candidates, none of them really seem like idealogues. All are conservative, of course, but none of them really sound like they'd go in with an agenda. With the exception of Gonzalez, of course.
I'll also note that Ashcroft is not on the list. <insert huge sigh of relief here>
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
