Redstate

Except tennis for me, not golf.

of dozens of analogies and metaphors for the state of mind I would/will be in should Gonzales be nominated, but I'll lay those aside and simply state, "Not one dime; not one vote."

I will have lost a lot of respect for the White House political people because they will have effectively brought Iraq and the issue of Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo/torture into a Supreme Court nomination by putting Gonzales back up there to be questioned.

I don't agree with him on many of the issues but I think he may be less independent than somebody like Souter, who he is often being compared to. I'm not sure he'd be put on the court and then all of the sudden would make a hard left turn.

I won't likely do very much to try to further the cause of getting him confirmed, though, and I'd certainly hope my Republican representatives, like Senator Santorum, will have a meeting with the President and ask him why he's sold out his base.

At the risk of repeating myself:

As far as the prospect of Alberto Gonzales goes, I think the nomination - let alone whether he makes it through - would be a disaster for the GOP and here's why.  There's an old joke about a mudslinging contest between two Senate candidates.  One of them accuses his opponent of being a devil-worshipping, pot-smoking, flag-burning adulterer or something like that.  An aide asks the candidate if he believes that's true of his opponent.  He responds with "no, but I sure do love making him deny it."

A Gonzales nomination is going to be the same thing.  We all know of his involvement with the so-called "torture memos" (not as an author but apparently that he was responsible for vetting them) and that if he is the nominee they are going to come up again and again and Gonzales' face time in the media is going to significantly consist of him (a) denouncing torture and/or (b) saying he doesn't support torture.

Frankly I think that this would be just the sort of political cover that Senate Democrats are looking for to claim "extraordinary circumstances" and I could see enough Republicans (e.g. the Q7 and some other Blue State Republicans) who aren't willing to go out on a limb for the guy.  It seems to me that a Gonzales nomination would be setting up the GOP for wasting more time and political capital over a nomination who is unlikely to be better than a Stephens or Kennedy and may not even make it through the Senate.

That's a trade-off that I find wanting.

On who Gonzales would replace.  If he replaces O'Connor I would be more accepting than if he replaces Rehnquist.

Gonzales is a bad choice on a number of issues, but he's not Souter and he's not Kennedy.

That said, I would hope that the President can see the ideological problems with Gonzales and isn't blinded by the idea of creating some sort of great legacy by naming him because he is hispanic.  There are at least two other hispanics that would be better choices if that's what he's after (Garza from the 5th Circuit, and Miguel Estrada).

In order of priority, the money I might have donated to the party will be spent on more vacations and my hobby, watch collecting; as to time, what little of it I have to donate to campaigns will count as extra time for my son and my dog.

Did Reagan think Kennedy would be Kennedy?  Did Bush think Souter would be Souter?  Or Nixon think Stevens would be Stevens?  There have been quite a few Jeckle/Hyde justice appointed.  

I don't believe Gonzales will be nominated, mainly due to technical reasons. As Ramesh Ponnuru notes, Gonzales would have to recuse himself from many key cases. The White House has had a propensity for making some major strategic blunders as of late, but I can't imagine that they'd do something so egregiously dumb.

Then again, perhaps I've more faith in the sanity of the White House then I should...

Go tennis!

Gonzales doesn't need to make a hard left turn.  He's drifted out that way already.

Gonzales favored affirmative action while he was on the Texas Supreme Court.  He also refused to support Texas's parental notification statute while he was on that court.  It would be no shock if he were to be similarly enamored of liberal ideas on the Supreme Court.  In fact, he has declared that Roe is "inviolable" - so you wouldn't count on him to do much to scale back constitutional protections for abortion.

He would also run into recusal issues on any number of important issues that could face the court due to his service as White House Counsel and as Attorney General.

Given what is known about Gonzales I am surprised he is on the short list - he certainly has none of the characteristics that the President has repeatedly declared are required of any Supreme Court nominee.

Then they'll keep Gonzales as Attorney General just because it was such a pain to get him there.  Bad enough having a Supreme Court Justice tied up in committee.  I don't think we need a new Justice and a new AG filtering through Congress till '06.

But Gonzales has a history from his days on the Texas Supreme Court.  He has clear red flags given what the President has said he wanted.

And yes, I think that Souter and Kennedy were "known" entities.  Bush could not get a controversial nominee through when he nominated Souter - he was going for a moderate mushy guy who would be an easy confirmation.

Kennedy was the third choice after Bork and Ginsburg - after the nightmare experience that was Bork, and then the embarassing revelation about Ginsburg, Reagan needed another "consensus" type who could get confirmed without another knock down battle.  Kennedy was the guy.  

I'm sure Reagan and Bush both hoped that their guys would be "better" on conservative issues, I don't think they could be too "shocked" at what happened.

Stevens is a wholly different case - but Nixon was never a "conservative" - he was a classic Republican of the 1950s (he was an NAACP member in 1960) and instituted price and wage controls during his presidency.  He even considered Sheets Byrd for a spot on the Supreme Court.  Who can be surprised that he wound up picking a liberal?

(1)    Because of his association with the so-called "torture" memos he would have to spend much of his face time either denouncing torture or making assurances that he's really against torture which would make him a very costly - in terms of time and political capital - nominee to get through.

(2)    Democrats would probably use this as justification for a filibuster under "extraordinary circumstances" and it is likely that there might be enough Republican defectors to prevent the Byrd Option or to even defeat him on an up-or-down vote which means he might not even get through.

(3)    As the Attorney General, if Gonzales were on the Supreme Court, he would have to recuse himself from a number of cases involving the administration.

(4)    There is nothing in his background to suggest that he would be a strict constructionist and we could be looking at expending a lot of time and energy to appoint another Souter.

IMO, it's not worth it.

... and I'm with you, Mr. Krempasky. To the links!

If the Democrats put up a big fight on Gonzales.

It would appear petty and they would spend much needed political capital for when the next appointment comes.

I can already see him cozy up to Justices Souter and Kennedy. I think he would be a disastrous pick by the President. I know the President is loyal to his people, but he also has to be loyal to the people who voted for him, namely us conservatives. I'd like to see Gonzales stay in the AG's office.

Powder Blue Report

they won't have to spend much political capital in getting a few shots in on him and the GOP.  He'd probably be confirmed, though not until after the Dems let the media have their red meat for a few days.  Damage done with little effort IMO.

You don't already play golf?  I thought all Republicans played golf.  Please, don't tell me you're a foosball champion...  Oh, wait...you're a yachtsman...right?  ;-)  Personally, I will renew my interest in constructing Fullerene geodesic dome houses, reading Cycle World and restoring my motorcycle.  Then I'll pack up my belongings into a trailer and ride the bike to Alaska and live in my new dome home.  

On Gonzalez, I agree with Thorley.  This will not be "pubic hair in my Coke."  This will only be a fragment of Ted Kennedy's diatribe against  Robert Bork:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution."

... no...it's more than that, because you would have to add the Geneva conventions, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc., etc., etc.  Regardless of who Bush picks, Kennedy is going to dust of his Bork files and use them, but in addition to the social conservative minuses for Gonzalez, there will be everything else as well.  And I just don't want to hear it.  Please pick somebody else, Mr. President.  

After the Senate Minority Whip declared on the floor of the Senate that short-shackling combined with rap and lack of (or too much) A/C constitutes Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Khmer Rouge they've pretty much committed themselves to grandstanding about any allegations of "torture."

I don't see how they could make a fuss about Gitmo and then refuse to filibuster a nominee that (rightfully or wrongfully) is associated with the so-called "torture memos" unless they are willing to tacitly admit that they really don't care about "torture" and its just another political football.

That's a question I keep asking - would he win in the Senate?  There's a lot of liberals out there who might very well vote against him the second time around AND what about the conservatives who would be INUNDATED with dissatisfaction from people like us.

Sure, the Arlen Specters, Olympia Snowes and others would probably vote for him.  But what about Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, David Vitter or Jim DeMint to name just a few staunchly and vocally conservative senators who openly want Roe vs. Wade overturned?  

No way.  Judges like him are not what conservatives just elected President Bush and grew the Senate majority to get.  We need someone we can be certain will change the makeup of the court.  Is anyone sure that Gonzalez would do that?

It doesn't matter who Gonzalez replaces, either.  When it comes to the voting, all seats are equal.

No more Souters!

Democrats will likely filibuster him if only to justify their previous grandstanding over "torture" and the "Geneva Conventions" while claiming it constitutes "extraordinary circumstances."  There could be at least a couple of wobbly Republicans - perhaps those from Blue States or think it might hurt their chances for reelection.  Then there is a strong anti-Gonzales sentiment from the conservative base which would probably (a) mute a lot of support from conservative Senators and possibly (b) cause a few to vote against him.

If Gonzales replaces Ginsburg or Stevens, I can live with that, as it alters the balance from 4 liberals, 3 conservatives and 2 moderates to a "balanced" 3 liberal, 3 conservative, 3 moderate SCOTUS.

One straightforward, the other a bit out there.

Straightforward: Gonzales for Stevens or Ginsberg is acceptable although not ideal.  Gonzales for O'Connor or Rehnquist is not.

Out there: Could this be a set up?  Could the WH nominate Gonzales so that Dems go mad about torture and remake their image as soft on terror.  Then the President could withdraw Mr. Gonzales and nominate a more "traditional" (read: Circuit Court judge) nominee.  If they threaten to filibuster the first one, could they really threaten a second one.  Wouldn't this charade of only opposing "extreme" nominees be exposed.  I'm not sure if the Prez and Rove have the balls for it, but dang, it would be a impressive move if pulled off correctly.

Bush tried to get tricky once before, when he didn't veto the BCRA.  We know how well that worked out.

I will oppose Gonzales.  I will write to the President, and to my two Senators (Texas).  I will continue to contribute to my Congressman, though.  Joe Barton is alright in my book.  But I'm not so sure about Kay Bailey...

One, Ford appointed Stevens, not Nixon.  Second, Stevens was being appointed to replace William O. Douglas, and the Senate was heavily Democratic--there was no way that Ford could have gotten away with appointing a hardline conservative to replace him.  Nixon did pick Blackmun (after the Haynsworth and Carswell fiascos), and your critique would certainly seem to fit there and to a lesser degree for Burger and Powell, who certainly weren't reliable conservative votes by today's standards.

Ideologically, it sucks.  But pragmatically, it has been a winner.

Now that the anti-Bush fundraising has died down, the RNC is outraising the DNC by a substantial margin.  Contrary to popular belief, the Dems have generally benefited from massive donations more than Reps.  Now that the parties are relying on $5,000-$25,000 donations instead of multi-million dollar ones (i.e. unions and hollywood), the Reps have a structural advantage.  It's still a bad law.  But they sugar that makes it go down is that it unequivocally helps the RNC in the present.

1.  I prefer that Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas be nominated.
   
2.  I don't have a firm opinion on Gonzales, but I gather that many think that he's not in the mold of Scalia or Thomas.
   
3.  Why is that?  Is it simply because it doesn't have a track record, and that the track record on nominees without track records is pretty bad (e.g., Souter)?  Or are there specific reasons to believe that Gonzales is an anti-Scalia or Anti-Thomas?  [If the latter, I'd really appreciate a cite to the source material.]

Thank you very much.  

"Is it simply because it doesn't have a track record,"

Erm, "he doesn't have a track record."

On the Texas Supreme Court are not encouraging, especially on the reddest of meats. Hint: There's a reason I'm not doing cartwheels over the guy.

We won't tell anyone that you know about the Albertobot.

Will the President keep his word?  Or did he lie to us?

He promised us a nominee in the mode of Scalia and Thomas.  Gonzales is many things - but even his supporters would not claim he is a Scalia or Thomas.  And on the defining political issues of the day, Gonzales is on the wrong side on almost every one.  His nomination would be one rewarding loyalty alone.

I would not stop being a conservative.  But I would stop supporting those who lie about being conservative.  Including the President.

The name of the opinion in question?  (Now that you mention it, I do recall some issue regarding abortion; but I don't recall any of the particulars.)

John Sununu was Bush's chief of staff then, and probably one of the most powerful Chiefs in recent history. He pushed hard for Souter (old friend and fellow NH resident). Sununu gave assurances that Souter would be fine on the court...and the rest is history.

In re Jane Doe, 19 S.W.3d 346, Texas Supreme Court, 22 June 2000 in which then Judge Gonzales wrote a concurring opinion.  Basically in a 6-3 decision, the TX Supreme Court found that a seventeen year old met the "mature and sufficiently well informed" exception in Texas' Parental Notification Law and Gonzales found that decision to be consistent with the intention of the legislature.  Hardly the mark of a judicial activist.

I still don't think that his nomination to the SCOTUS would be worth the political cost and am skeptical of whether he would be constructionist/originalist judge but this decision does not present any evidence for or against him on that matter.  It seems to be more of a case of "we don't like the outcome, so he's unacceptable."

I refuse to play that game.

I'm not promulgating the lame "marionette" line, of course, but I trust he'd be on top of at least the political ramifications of such a pick.

Has Augustine commented yet?

The President, though he'll no doubt pick whomever he personally wants, cannot afford to nominate A.G., A.G.

A number of Republican senators may have some hesitation, but my guess is Gonzales would get 45-50 Republican votes when the time comes, possibly more. It takes lots of backbone to buck both the president and the Hispanic lobby on this, not something is abundant supply in Washington.

Am I the only one who can't help but laugh at the idea of Santorum lecturing someone about selling out the base?

. . .that Blackmun was a childhood friend of Burger's.  According to The Brethren, that wasn't much of a factor one way or another in the decision, but one can't help but think that deep down Nixon and his advisors thought they were giving Burger a second vote (as some accused at the time).  That certainly turned out not to be the case. . .

The divergence in their positions on the Court was nicely mirrored by their personal lives. Kind of sad -- except that I look forward to seeing Harry Blackmun when I arrive in Hell.

And this is simply the legal junkie in me speaking, but there is a difference between saying, "I believe this is a straightforward application of the law," and "I believe the law is wrong, but it is the law." I have never begrudged editorializing so long as the correct legal conclusion is reached, and truthfully, neither has Gonzales. Except here.

The problem is not that he's rah-rah on Roe. It's that the impression opinion junkies get is that it fits into his concept of an ordered universe, and there is precisely no reason to disturb it. It implies that the base of his legal reasoning, even in good faith, is in error.

I would have to laugh a little. I had already come to the conclusion that the party is still controlled by the Rockefeller mindset whatever perceived gains the Goldwater crowd had made.

The GOP is not merely corrupt (that is to be expected) but is TOO corrupt to be the vehicle through which socially conservative politics can be expressed. This is not to sound high minded about the thing. I understand how power works. It's just a fact.

Thomas Frank was right about our GOP - it sells us values and delivers only butter (and guns now).

Aren't you glad you supported establishment figures like Bush I and Dole over a real troublemaker and culture warrior like Buchanan who would have gone to the mat for the Supreme Court.

One of Rove's goals was to make inroads into the Hispanic vote. He was able to do it in Texas, and a long term Republican Majority may depend on it. They are a fast growing minority. Nominating the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court (not counting the Portugese Cardozo) would fit as a part of that.

Add to that the fact that he's a fellow Texan ... I think the nomination is in the bag. Texans take favors for fellow Texans very seriously.

Do you have a cite for that somewhere?

I apologize. Insufficient sleep and too much stress lately. A cite for him being rah-rah? (I said I don't think that's the case.) For him editorializing? (Give me some time -- when I have a longer break. Been a while since I practiced in Texas.) For his concept of the universe? (Nothing more than I gave.) Something else?

Getting away from the good or bad, I think Gonzales is inevitable in one of the first 2 nominations.

Bush is famous for being loyal to those who are loyal to him. Gonzales has been with him since Texas and by all accounts has been loyal throughout. Putting in a Hispanic, Texan, long time friend and dang good judge may be too much to resist.

Gonzales has been Bush and Rove's buddy for a while.  If they appointed him, I would think they know something we don't and he may be more conservative than it appears.

I'd be tempted to support him for that reason.  Knowing someone for 20 years carries a lot of weight.

Also, this is a great breakdown of the difference between:

Scalia-type judicial conservative, and a Thomas-type originalist/federalist

I didn't understand the difference until now.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_06_26-2005_07_02.shtml#1119812379

knowing someone for 20 years might (rose)color their judgement of him too

I'd love to see him get CJ.

Thomas' originalism is my cup of tea.  I'd love to see Bush ram through as many Thomas types as possible.  I like Scalia, but I think Thomas' originalist tendencies are better for the Court and the country.

Go sailing. Go poker. Go hunting.  Go, go go, and take me with you.

I hope someone at the White HOuse is reading this blog.

"Hello, can I talk to the President? Ah, he is busy.  That's fine.  Tell him we pray for him, and we want a strict construstionist justice, even 3.  Tell him this is his rendevouz with history and his opportunity to meet our destiny.  We and our grandchildren will praise him for that.  Ah, he got off the phone, so let me talk to him..."

and I think it will.  But if/when it does happen, can I have your shares of Redstate?

But does Bush have enough sway over the Senate left to ram through unpopular justices? After his stubborness with Bolton, Terri Schaivo and Social Security, ramming through his agenda may no longer be an option.

Gonzales is pro-affirmative action and anti-parental notification in abortions.  Those are the too BIG non-conservative positions that most people have issues with.

The parental notification case was a 6-3 decision and Gonzales in his concurring position found that the facts of the case fell within the "mature and sufficiently well informed" exception as enacted by the legislature.  Hardly the mark of a pro-abortion radical.

No worries, here's why?

Alberto Gonzales can't be worst than Nebuchadnezzar and he finally realized:

... that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Daniel 4:25b

Fear not, there has never been a Justice that has changed God's plan.

Christ is the answer, if help is the question.

bill

Frankly, reading that concurring opinion makes me much more comfortable with a Justice Gonzales.  There's no no judicial activism in it; to the contrary.  Nor is there any particular fondness for abortion on display; it might not have the lamentations desired by Thomas, but Gonzales hardly endorses the law at issue.

Here're the key passages in my eyes:

Legislative intent is the polestar of statutory construction. .... [citation omitted] Our role as judges requires that we put aside our own personal views of what we might like to see enacted, and instead do our best to discern what the Legislature actually intended. .... [citation omitted] We take the words of the statute as the surest guide to legislative intent. See id. at 866. Once we discern the Legislature's intent we must put it into effect, even if we ourselves might have made different policy choices. See id.

....

The dissenting opinions suggest that the exceptions to the general rule of [parental] notification should be very rare and require a high standard of proof. I respectfully submit that these are policy decisions for the Legislature. And I find nothing in this statute to directly show that the Legislature intended such a narrow construction. As the Court demonstrates, the Legislature certainly could have written section 33.033(i) to make it harder to bypass a parent's right to be involved in decisions affecting their daughters. See _ S.W.3d at _. But it did not. Likewise, parts of the statute's legislative history directly contradict the suggestion that the Legislature intended bypasses to be very rare. See id. at _ (detailing legislative history). Thus, to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism. As a judge, I hold the rights of parents to protect and guide the education, safety, health, and development of their children as one of the most important rights in our society. But I cannot rewrite the statute to make parental rights absolute, or virtually absolute, particularly when, as here, the Legislature has elected not to do so.

The only thing that I would quibble about is Gonzales' reliance on the legislative history; if the statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, there should be no cause to consult its history.  

If there are other decisions that are allegedly troubling, I'll read them.  This decision, however, shows a judge who knows the proper role of the judiciary.  It should be comforting, not troubling, to those who truly oppose judicial activism (as opposed to paying lip service to it).

Again, I'm not sure if Gonzales is the right guy for the job; leaving aside their result, his torture memos contain so many crappy legal analyses that it's hard to have complete confidence in his abilities.  

A more practical divide is between conservative justices that would rather write a dissent than get less than a complete victory.

Thomas and Scalia are the great in the minority. They deliver some really sharp critiques and lay out how things ought to be. Bright lines are needed to delineate issues, gray areas discouraged. They would rather fight than switch, and lose than compromise.

O'Connor, Kennedy, usually Rehnquist are 'half a loaf' types. Often they will join the majority to get what they can, often compromising principals to make progress on an issue. Being in the majority means that their belief system wins, although the compromises sometimes dilute the victory substantially.

Maybe you could still vote, but vote Democratic.

As a Democrat, I can see only one way for a Gonzales nomination to go.

First, our D Senators will expose those torture memos to a national audience that is paying attention.  Second, we'll confirm him anyway;  after all there is the agreement.

Remember when Kerry said he would appoint pro-Roe justices and Bush proudly announced that he would have no litmus test?  That was no mistake.  And Souter was no mistake either.

The "elite" leaders of the Republican party act like people who favor the lives of the unborn are embarassing hicks and rubes, more than any coastal elitist Democrat does.  Republican leaders live in mortal fear of loosing either suburban support or evangalical support if Roe is ever reversed.

Once Republicans are in power, they don't have any sympathy for homeowners standing in the way of corprate welfare kleptocracy takings schemes.  No one in D.C. wants to see judges that will enforce the Tenth Amendment--seeing it as an "inkblot" is just a part of the definition of being a D.C. politician and that goes double for Republicans.

So evangelicals will feel shot down by Gonzales even as Dems expose a bad record on torture.  Then our own pro-abortion wing of the D party will relax some, letting us build a more moderate record around the nation.

It's win-win-win-win-win for Democrats with a Gonzales nomination.  After the way Bush has been treating conservatives on the budget, McCain-Feingold, corporate welfare, states' rights, and so on, don't expect to get what you want here.

Go Donkeys.

Listen, I, along with the vast majority of posters here, don't agree with everything Bush has/or will do.  This to me, is worse than single issue voting by far.  Did you take the ball and go home when the other wobblers were appointed to the SC? No?  Then why are you throwing down the gauntlet now?  It's really hard to take some of this seriously, especially considering the mission statement, when one disagreement, while major in your eyes, makes you drop from the scene.  
-bro

That said, I would hope that the President can see the ideological problems with Gonzales

So much for wanting someone who is highly qualified and will not legislate from the bench.   I think it is high time people stop hiding behind that argument and just admit the whole process is about the judge whos ideology most agrees with your own.  

But to claim on one hand the need for strict constructionists, judges who will "interpret and not legislate" and then to claim candidates have ideological problems are 'unacceptable' is the height of hypocrisy.  You are in effect admitting that you do want someone to legislate from the bench.

why can't the "ideaological problems" mean that they have a difference of opinion over being strict or loose and not left/right?

What you're seeing here is generally some steam being blown off over frustration with other things.  Since we can't swear on Redstate - we threaten to take up tennis ;)

It doesn't.

Most people are results oriented.  They couldn't care less how a justice gets to that result.

the strict/loose dichotomy is as ideological as the left/right one.  Particularly when the difference consistently highlights the ideological differences.

I totally agree.  He is more than enough disaster as AG, where his attitude concerns me greatly.  To put him on the Supreme Court would be unconscionable.  Puppets don't make good Justices.