Redstate

In case the White House interns are reading this, GIVE US WILLIAMS.

If one of the liberals retires (Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter) THEN give us Gonzales.

PROBLEMS WITH GONZO -- Recusal issues

PROBLEMS WITH THOMPSON/BATCHELOR -- Age

PROBELMS WITH WILLIAMS -- None!

A woman will also have an easier time getting confirmed.

No offense to your sources, but it sounds pretty dubious all around. A fast announcement would be an indicator that they had all their ducks in a row and were proceeding with confidence. Dragging it out would be an indicator that things are confused and finding the right choice is being difficult.

In a letter to the Pres - see Erick's comment on ConfirmThem. She is obviously an abortionist. NO!

WH interns, bear this in mind. We are DONE with activism, dollars, volunteering and grass-roots efforts if we get anybody pro-roe.

Gonzales is doubly bad. He's pro-Roe and pro-affirmative action, like Mahoney. Not to mention pro-torture.

NO!

I'm getting pretty annoyed with them tip toeing around and trying to find someone to please the democrats.  Everyone, I guess except the WH, knows that whoever the nominee is will be called every name in the book and dragged through the mud.  They will fight anyone that isn't a liberal.  Even if a cloned O'Connor was nominated, they would go nuts.  If they want a fight and want to make this process a public trial of liberal versus conservative, I eagerly look forward to that debate.  We have the issues, we have the ideas and this isn't a Democratic Senate like with Bork and the media is not the three networks, NYT and Wash Post.  If they want support the rest of the term then I want a true conservative and not some appeasement nominee.

Tom Delay isn't hiding in the back room.  He knows the facts and isn't afraid of a public fight about them.  The WH needs to grow a backbone and let their actions speak as their campaign words had.  They need to remember how they reached out to Kennedy in the first term and how he turned on them will all the "Iraq is Bush's Vietnam" crap.  They reach out to Clinton and he rips him weeks later.  We don't need to get into the sewer with the Democrats but dam-it fight them over the principles we stand for.

Thomas go through in a Democrat Senate, we are the majority in the Senate and the country, start acting like it and govern from strength.

Janice Rogers Brown, Garza, Luttig, Estrada, Owen, Jones, Pryor.

If you can't stand up to the threats of Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Chuckie who can you stand up against?

The bottom will fall out of the president's approval numbers he nominates any of the above except Priscilla Owen. And as I've written, while I think Owen would be a reliable vote, I don't think she'd be an impressive justice.

It's a sad state to see The Bush Administration in these days. Where is Reagan when you have a 55-seat GOP majority in Congress and need him? Oh yeah...resting in peace. I wish I could join him in some restful peace, but because of The Bush Administration's weakness, I'm not getting much!

Not sure where Erick got that notion about Williams, but this article talks about Lindsey Graham and his push for Williams.

"A woman will also have an easier time getting confirmed. "

I'm sure people told President GHW Bush that a 'black' man would have an easier time getting confirmed.

Liberal Democrats need a liberal activst court too much to let any conservative go without a fight, no matter how much you pander to their 'race' and sex discriminatory tendencies.

Really, if a Gonzalez nomination is something President Bush wants, he should make the nomination.  I really am getting sick of the pandering to all of the political interests.  

One of the qualities I appreciate about the President is that he follows his convictions -- a trait that served him well in his campaigns for Governor and President.  When this White House gets into trouble, it generally is because the President relies too heavily on appeasing the interests of others.  So I hope the President follows his convictions again and names Gonzalez -- if he truly believes Gonzalez is the best available candidate.    

And for those out there claiming "their done" supporting the President if he tabs Gonzalez -- do you really wish to check out of the political process on other issues the Administration wants to advance during the final years of GWB's 2nd term?  That's what the libs want -- fracture the party completely on one issue and paralyze Congressional action until 2008.  Incredibly short-sighted.

Fox just announced that Bush is going to make the Announcement!

knows, or ought to know, or has advisors who know, the party calculus, which holds that flipping the most motivated portion of the base the bird (ie., nominating Gonzales or any other jurist who is squishy on cultural questions and their realitionship to the Constitution) will precipitate a de facto split in the party.  Or, if one prefers other nomenclature, such an action will not so much split the party as tell that part thereof which has done the most grunt work for GWB since 1999 that it is no longer wanted or needed.  And we will take the message and stay home, and refrain from making our contributions.

The simple reality is that GWB knows this, and has no excuse for not knowing it; therefore, if he proceeds to nominate AGAG, responsibility for any woes sufferd by the party will fall on his shoulders, and those woes, ranging from a lame duck Presidency to a fractured party, along with a pro-Roe SCOTUS justice, will be the realized desires of the other party.  

When a subset of a political party works for that party with an object in mind, and the leaders of that party, who have promised to deliver said object, renege, kicking that subset of the party in the teeth, blame for any subsequent party disunity cannot logically fall upon the slighted subset of the party.  The leadership know the terms of the bargain.

False alarm! Please withdrawl.

Bad information from Free Republic.

today???

Candidate Bush promised SCOTUS appts. in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. There are 55 Republicans in the senate, counting quasis like Chafee, Specter, Snowe et.al.

For crying out loud, if GWB can't swing for the fence on this one and appoint Luttig, Edith Jones (Or my personal favorite Frank Easterbrook), when can he ever?

If GWB wants to appoint Gonzales, he will likely get one more chance. If a seat opens in '07 or '08, that is the time to go with a "consensus pick". The Rep. majority may erode in the next Congress, and it is always difficult to get judges confirmed late in a Presidents term. So appoint Luttig now, save Gonzales, Liers, Williams for a possible appointment later in GWB's term.

Erick's source is probably the wiser.

Unless Bush is pulling a huge headfake, he will probably sit on it through the weekend. Doing it today would take away from Condi's foreign policy speech at Princeton, from which Bush probably doesn't want to detract.

She wants a woman to be nominated but not any woman would do.  Some would roll back civil rights, woman's rights, eat live kittens, blah blah.

With the leftist base if you are not an activist liberal then they will fight.  But with the moderates and middle of the public, opposing a qualified nominee for political reasons will not play well.  With groups, opposing the first Hispanic would be deadly.  Hispanics are very religious so the roe v wade, gay rights stuff will not be a good tone for the Democrats to take.

i wouldn't read into this too much, b/c as AG he is very busy, but, i was at an event last night at charlie palmer's honoring former justice department appointee makan delrahim.  gonzales was supposed to be there, but never showed.  mind you, this happens frequently in dc, but makes you wonder.  

I guess that I might be the LEAST SURPRISED commentator here, so see what is being said today about the next SC nominee: namely, that GWB really wants to go with AGAG.

At the risk of repeating myself ad nausem:

1. GWB values loyalty very highly.  It's a very, very short list of human beings who have been more loyal to GWB for a longer period of time than AGAG.  And, I hasten to add, NO ONE commenting here is on that list above AGAG.
   
2. GWB follows his instincts/guts on BIG questions regularly.  If his instincts are telling AGAG, Fellas, get ready for a MASSIVE heart attack, when GWB announces his intention to nominate AGAG.
   
3. All of the "blowback" that conservatives have been directing at AGAG (in a very ill-advised effort to scare GWB away from picking him) may very well perversely push GWB harder towards picking AGAG.  

If you all don't want AGAG, sit down and shut up.  Unfortunately, it's probably too late to have any serious impact on GWB's decision, but I have been stunned at the behavior of those who claim to be conservatives feel that attacking AGAG helps them.  Simply stunned.

4)AGAG would be tougher for Senate Democrats to filibuster than this crowd realizes.  The value of that is overlooked here, daily.  That's another mistake.

5) Finally, the 55 Senate GOPers are not monolithic.  Humorously enough, the "conservatives" are not monolithic in their own thinking as well.  AGAG would be far, far more acceptable to far, far more Senate GOPers than the "strict constructionists" that this crowd keeps throwing out in the public arena.

For example, JRB would probably not even garner 48-49 Senate GOP votes.  

On the other hand, AGAG probably garners 53, 54, or even 55 Senate GOP votes.  Starting with that level of support, finding a modest number of moderate Senate Democrats makes CONFIRMING the next SC nominee a realistic possibility, which JRB (or some of the other candidates frequently leaked to the press) does not.

5) Finally, if in fact Karl Rove is backing AGAG, you all are toast.  But, I'm willing to acknowledge that there remains the possibility that KR's FINAL recommendation to GWB might not be AGAG.

 

Please! Social conservatives do not own the Republican Party, no matter how much they may think they do. There are plenty of moderate folks out here, like me, who are concerned over issues such as taxes, the war, defense, international affairs, etc. Abortion/gays/prayer do not concern me nearly as much as these other issues. Sorry, but if social conservatives feel they are slighted, and they decide to take their toys and go home in 2006 and 2008, they will make sure that Hillary runs the show in 2009.

can get 52 in a Democrat Senate then JRB should get at least that in a 55-45 Senate.

Does the White House really care that much what folks on Redstate, Kos etc really think. I mean both blogs are base blogs (only committed partisans are regulars) so what would really happen if they did nominate Gonzales or Owen..either side would get mad and then get over it! Really..we don't know what we don't know. Liberals blasted Souter and 2 yrs later turned out to be a reliable left-center judge. How do we know that Roberts won't do that or become even more conservative that the 22 Dems and some moderate GOPers who voted for him, regret it? Again, we don't know what we don't know.

I personally think Bush should nominate a hispanic man or woman and one who may not be as experienced or as sharp as Roberts, but is fair minded. Its high time the court had more diversity and I personally think term limits would help instead of lifetime appointments, but that can be another debate.

On a larger note, I've been thinking that both parties (but possibly the GOP in particular), don't want a woman's right to an abortion overturned and here is why. I suspect the GOP (mostly professional politicians and not true heart conservatives) have realized what Reagan realized 25 yrs ago, the alternative would be a policy disaster. I think most people do not like the thought of having an abortion and most women probably never will, but to deny the option outright and thereby incur the wrath of countless of women voters ( who are generally prochoice) would be too high a price to pay, much higher than losing social conservatives I bet. Think about it...does anyone really think that the GOP has the guts to push for a repeal of abortion rights and expect to survive the political consequences?? These guys are professional politicians and true believers, whether liberals or conservatives should not expect too much and be cautious so as not to be used (which i believe is what the GOP is doing to some christian/social conservatives today).

And, according to the article, he hunts quail with her husband.

we just want him to honor his campaign promise.

He could have said O'Connor but he didn't, did he.

...of you to win elections. And too many of your kind, period.

We want a fiscal conservative AND a social conservative. Shouldn't be too much to ask.

description of social conservatives as whiners who will take their toys and stay home can obtain if and only if we are the equivalents of children who have received everything we are from the Party and now demand certain gifts from it.  This is not the case.  We have done the work and made the sacrifices for the party, and we expect the compensation understood by all to be the condition of our participation, just like any other group of adults who cooperate in the sort of collaborative venture that a political party is.

Sir:

The US Senate that confirmed Clarence Thomas during the GHWB tenure has almost nothing in common with the US Senate today.

I recall a popular book many years ago, with an appropriate title "That was then, this is now."

JRB might not even get north of 45 or 46 Senate GOPers currently.  You are VASTLY overstating the amount of support for a nominee such as her amongst Senate GOPers these days.  Vastly.

The worst that would happen is that the issue would be returned to the States, where abortion-happy constituencies such as those who live in CA and NY would make sure that a woman's right to kill her unborn child would remain sacrosanct.

Remember, under our federal system of governance, the people in every state get the kind of government they deserve. For instance, in Lousiana, the people voted in Huey Long during the Depression. Which explains why all the jobs went to Texas.

..is that a person (or institution) that is not explicitly conservative will move left over time. There is no historical precedent (except MAYBE Byron White,)for a Supreme Court justice moving to the right once confirmed.

  Blackmun/O'Connor/Kennedy/Souter/Brennan/Stewart/Burger/Powell were all Repub appointees who migrated left. So if you are asking conservatives to have faith that a Stealth-type nominee will be not adopt the same leftward trajectory, you are asking us to ignore a ton of historical precedent.

Also remember that the if Roe is overturned, it only has the effect of returning the issue to the States where it should have been all along.

P.S. What polling data are you looking at which shows women are "generally" pro choice? The data I've seen show that women are more pro-life than men.

easily confirmed had Anita Hill not crept out of the woodwork. That was not something that Bush I or his people could possibly have foreseen. Maybe nowadays they will ask potential niminees if they have ever even so muchas laughed at a risque joke among co-workers but back then I doubt anyone would have guessed at such a possible problem.

If Bush is down to Luttig, Alito, Gonzales, and Miers and wants another Roberts, then his choice becomes much clearer. Luttig or Alito. It is a no-brainer.

I can see where a less than impressive interview with the President and staff might make for some concern that a potential nominee would be able to get through the confirmation process. But at this point Bush needs to reach out to the Senate for one of the rare times in his administration (one that has probably the worst relationship with Congress of any in our lifetime) and get the Senate to muscle the choice through.

And Erick's source is absolutely right about keeping the pressure on. No on Gonzales. No on Miers. No on Thompson. No on Mahoney. No on candidates closer to 60 than 40. No on taking chances. No on trusting the administration that their research has uncovered that which is not readily apparent. No on anything less than a bona fide conservative, strict constructionist, and legal heavyweight with a track record to match.

The administration is overthinking this - paralysis by analysis - because the top tier candidates who are closest to Roberts in philosophy and gravitas (Luttig, Alito, Jones, Rogers Brown) have one or two flaws that the Chief Justice didn't have: 1) a paper trail against Roe and/or 2) not as personable a demeanor for the confirmation process. But getting the Senate Republican majority to play hardball should overcome those drawbacks.

That's an interesting interpretation of history. A somewhat more cynical view, given the credibility of Anita Hill's allegations, would be that the Donks forced her out of the woodwork to use as a pretense to oppose Thomas, which they intended to do anyway.

Why do you think Janice Rogers Brown would get so (comparatively) few GOP votes?

I'm sure there has been commentary galore, but I've missed it. Is he black, or something? Conservative? Corporate?

If the Democratic Party continues tilting leftward, more moderate Dems and moderate Independents will pull the GOP lever on election day. Those increased numbers of moderates will want their issues addressed. Social conservatives may find themselves outnumbered my moderates in the GOP as the Democrats continue to decline. There are indeed quite enough centrists in the country to win elections. The extreme left and extreme right eventually manage to alienate everyone. Don't push your luck.

you are far off base.  Other than the "republican's" Snowe, Collins and Chaffee who would defect?  As Chairman, Spector could not.  You would also keep at least a few of the gang of 14 dem's, nelson, Landrieu and probably Nelson of Fl.

The Republican's today are far more conservative than 15 years ago.  All those southern democrats are now republican's, Hollins swapped for Demint, Nun for Chambliss, etc.

Although I'm a pro-choice Republican, I agree with Maximos.  I don't think intra-party bickering and insults help us at all, some of my best friends are very socially conservative, even though I am not.  We can accept that we disagree on some issues and move on to talk about things we do agree on.

I have a question for social conservatives - you say that you oppose AGAG because he is not conservative enough?  Is he not conservative enough on many issues, or just not on Roe v Wade?

I understand that many conservatives feel that Roe was an ill-decided case, but I am interested to know if that is the sole basis of opposition to AGAG as the nominee?

On MSNMC last evening, Buchanon and Gergen both agrees...."What President Bush needs now is a bench clearing brawl".......why are we so timid about losing Chafee, the Maine twins and even Specter.....if Specter does another "borking", his chairmanship will be shredded....he is concerned with his own legacy.....very few ever mention the Red State Democrat Senators up for re-election in 2006......the heaviest heat will be on them if we do have a "brawl"....like Conrad in ND, the 2 Nelsons, Byrd, et al......the best way for POTUS to build his legacy long term and to re-energize his short term fortunes is make a choice that invigorates the base.....the right choice, an originalist.....so make it Luttig or Jones or JRB.....a major requirement to win the "brawl" will be qualifications.....W cannot give the Dems an easy out....this is why Roberts sailed thru......who knows, maybe the William Bennett faux paus will make a JRB appointment very timely......have a hard time envisioning the Dems successfully stopping her nomination

I don't have polling data to go by but I am basing a general analogy on voting patterns I've seen overtime. Abortion mainly affect women (since they are the ones that carry the baby) just like issues of racial discrimination generally weigh more on minds of African American voters and immigration, on the minds of new immigrant voters, generally Mexican. I don't know if Roe is a good or bad law but the reason why the Warren court ruled for Roe was because they did not want different standards for women across the country, which is what will happen if it is overturned (ps, I thought the Huey Long analogy was funny). The way the law out to work is that it is sufficiently insulated from temporary political pressure so as not to compromise some rights of some individuals. So if for example, all states south of the Mason-Dixie line ban all abortions, it would mean that even one woman who is seeking an abortion in say, MS, would face an undue burden in going to the nearest state that allows one, possibly throwing it back to the courts. I know there is no legislative act explicitly granting a woman the right to an abortion, but I don't think that is necessarily needed...and I'd be willing to bet that the GOP knows this and would not want to have to decide the issue for the very fact that if they decide how social conservatives want, they may not be able to survive the political fallout..that is why I suspect they'd rather have the issue alive than resolved.

lack of experience, a paucity of opinions that enable one to form a complete impression of the man's jurisprudence.

If President Bush can't uphold his promise to nominate judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, then Republicans deserve to lose elections.

Republicans today are failing on fiscal discipline and failing on border control.  If they fail on judges too, then we have no reason to vote for them.

You single out 'social conservatives' (a term I'm going to write about soon), but they're about the only group that President Bush, Rep. Delay, and co. haven't betrayed yet.

Is this what opposition to certain POTENTIAL nominees has come to?  Some of them deserve to be opposed, but can't we do it without threatening to take our ball and go home?

Beyond the sheer pettiness of it, I think it actually encourages Bush -- or anyone threatened in a similar way, for that matter -- to do what we don't want him to do.  Not least because people like Gonzales and Miers are friends of the president, and we know how he feels about loyalty.

if just a few states retain legal abortion?  Won't there be support, both financial and logistical, for women who still want to have an abortion?  It may may stop a few but will it really do anything to stop most?

The problem is that there have been so few Democratic appointees--just two since Fortas.

But there are examples of Democratic nominees who didn't turn out exactly as planned.  White is an excellent example--a Kennedy pick that was nothing like the liberal you might have expected.  FDR had a few appointees turn out a bit different--how about Robert Jackson, who is now frequently cited in hearings (by CJ Roberts himself) as a paragon of restraint conservatism...and for whom Rehnquist was a clerk?  Felix Frankfurter...Harvard professor, advisor on the New Deal...and relatively conservative on the Warren Court.

The lamenting that justices don't always turn out as planned is ridiculous.  Of course they don't, and it's true for both parties.  Why don't they?  #1 because people mature and grow, even in later life, if you give them 20 years to do so.  Some grow more conservative as they age while others grow more moderate/more pragmatic as they accumulate wisdowm.  #2 because they're lawyers/judges, not pure politicians, so they see principles that can cut both ways on the results.  Look at the near-perfect consensus of judges in the Schiavo debacle, including some very conservative people in a very conservatie part of the country.  Were they wrong because they didn't use the law to reach the "right result"?  No--they interpreted the law faithfully, which is all we should ask of judges.  #3, the times change, so perhaps you appointed someone as "tough on crime" in one era but never bothered to ask them about an issue like homosexuality that emerges a decade later.  

he ought to be loyal to those who worked for his campaigns and PUT HIM IN OFFICE, to those of us who did so on condition that he, would, once in office, appoint strict constructionists to the SCOTUS.  Dance with the one who brung ya.

What do we bring to the table other than our money and energy?  What chip do we hold in bargaining with the President?  We can scream all we want about getting a true conservative as a nominee, but the world is about consequences.  If there are no consequences to the President in nominating a stealth candidate (like Thomson) or a flat-out moderate (like Gonzales), then why should he listen to us.  He can ignore us, get what he wants and suffer no consequences.

The only consequences we can really assure is that grass-roots enthusiasm for him, his programs, and his party, will fall off precipitously if he goes with one of those options.

In your metaphor - let's say you're the short kid on the basketball court, but the ball is yours.  You want playing time.  You can't bargain with your superior skill or your power.  All you have to bargain with is the ball.  And if you threaten to end the game altogether, you'll probably get what you want.  It may seem harsh, but politics is not a nice gentlemanly game - it's a scaled down version of war - and that means sometimes you have to make some harsh calls.  In politics, the nice guys really do finish last - if they don't get run over completely first.

To those who promise to stay home, play golf, withdraw donations, etc: I really hope the President calls your bluff. Because if you do stay home, it shows that social conservatives in the party are using a one-issue litmus test for the President. Hopefully there is more to hang your support of Bush on than "he better nominate an anti-Roe judge."

Remember, this was not what he promised. He promised to select jusges who would strictly interpret the Constitution. Check the debate transcripts. When pressed on the Roe issue, he evaded it each and every time in the debates. Maybe there was a reason for this...Some say he was speaking "in code," so in a sense he kinda left the dots for the voters to connect.

So if Bush nominates a strict-Constitutionalist who has no record on the abortion issue, has he kept his word? I think so. Besides, with all the work the Social Conservatives have done to get to this point, I seriously doubt they'd stay home, play golf, and let the liberal Democrats return to power.

I'd expect to see Snowe, Collins, and Chafee defect quite easily.  Faced with a JRB figure, we'd see Voinovich go wobbly (he cried about Bolton and that was only for 4 years, max) and probably Warner too (remember he's all about comity and Senate tradition).  No Dems would vote for JRB because the lefties will declare her unconfirmable and Reid will make it a measure of loyalty.  With Bush's popularity down and Frist under a cloud of b.s. suspicion on the insider trading thing, there's not much actual leadership in the senate on something like this.

Plus, what exactly would Specter have to lose if he were to oppose JRB?  His whole goal was to be chairman to oversee the SCOTUS process.  If he helps get a bipartisan majority to sink JRB on the floor of the Senate, Bush will have to nominate someone much, much less controversial and more acceptable to Specter.  And a losing fight on JRB takes us through to next summer, there's no guarantee that it moves quickly like Roberts' did.

So we take away Specter's gavel, I bet he'd pay that price to block someone like JRB from the SCOTUS.

It's be a wasteful move for Bush to appoint someone as hard core as JRB.  There's lots of folks like Roberts out there who are confirmable and conservative.  Sticking them in the eye may be fun, but it's counterproductive when we're already fighting so many other fronts.

Why would the WH be "shell shocked" "confused,"

"stumbling," "full of doubt?"

Did they not anticipate SCOTUS vacancies?  Have they not planned for years for this moment?  Were not all the players vetted long ago?

Call me idealistic but I don't want the words "shell shocked" "confused,"

 "stumbling," "full of doubt" ever to be an accurate description of the WH decision making process- no matter who inhabits it.  

I'm hoping you were kidding.

Wasn't such a big bluff in 1992, was it? "Read my lips..."

I wonder if the editors of RedState might consider an official, public endorsement. Who knows, maybe at the margins, it will make a difference. My own vote is for JRB. Even if her candidacy doesn't make it through (though I bet it would) we would at least be making the other side pay a political price for their opposition.

---"That's what the libs want -- fracture the party completely on one issue and paralyze Congressional action until 2008.  Incredibly short-sighted.---"

It is the President to whom you should address such concerns.  If he nominates a Gonzales or similar less-than-Conservative judge, it will have been the President, not the unconscienable, fillibustering Democrats, who will have fractured the party.

I did not man phone banks for tax cuts;  my church did not have daily prayer circles and get-out-the-vote efforts to keep the court at its current balance.  Focus on the Faimly, the ACLJ, and the multitudes of socially Conservative groups out there who have gone to bat time and time and time again for this President and the GOP (even to the point of allowing them to publicly disown us and scold us for the sake of saving political face when something "controversial" happens) did not put out all of their (our) efforts because they (we) desperately wanted to eliminate the Estate ("Death") tax.  We went to bat for the SCOTUS nominees, based on an exclusive and unconditional promise that the President would nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, and no others.  We care about the unborn more than the Estate tax; we care about State's rights more than about tax cuts; we care about gun rights more than nation building in Iraq; and we care more about true equal treatment under the law than about drilling in Alaska.  The other issues are all real issues of the day we agree with, but they are far - FAR - from the reason we pray every day, organize, donate time and money, and fight for the President.

The President will have only himself to blame - ONLY HIMSELF - not us, not the Democrats, not the media, nobody but himself should he choose of his own free will to fracture the party with this pick.

I and many others will not go to bat for Al Gonzales, short of him taking bold public steps - BOLD STEPS - to correct what we know about his stances on the issues.  In fact, we'll probably do everything we can to see him defeated, to the point of "punishing" Republicans who vote for him.  "Trust me" doesn't cut it.  I am one of many - whether you like it or not - who would gladly see the Democrats take the Senate back in 2006 to prove our importance if the President should outright betray us with an Al Gonzales or Williams or Thompson or Miers.  

Yes, you heard me right.  It's THAT important.

I'm not worried about keeping the staus quo and retaining power for the GOP; I'm interested in promises kept and results.  Immense spending, nation building, debts, deficits, no school vouchers, etc. are just a few in a list of things we have overlooked mainly (and sometimes exclusively) because of the importance of the SCOTUS nomiees.

To hell with electing Republicans if they betray us.  Let them lose.  If the best we can hope for with a 10 vote majority in the Senate and an overwhelming majoity of the House, along with the Executive Branch, is a Gonzales, Williams, Miers, Thompson, or another "super-secret, stealth" candidate, then there is no point to social Conservatives - those whose primary issue is the SCOTUS and abortion - supporting the GOP.

It's that simple.  We will not come out in 2006, and likely in 2008.

Remember "No new Taxes?" Remember a 91% approval rating?  Oh yes, it could well be "like father, like son;" and yes, they could both leave a legacy of missed opportunities on the Supreme Court, and a subsequent Clinton Presidency.

It could be deju vu.  

I'd prefer Bush not be a liar.  I'd prefer he be a promise keeper.  It's about damn time he went to bat for Social Conservatives when it requires a fight.  Otherwise, we'll see it for what it was - much like the Marriage Amendment - campaign fodder with no intention of following though after he gets our votes.

Mr. President, be a man of your word!

Maximos, I am not stupid and I am not insulting anyhone. I said that social conservatives have no right to demand that the party or the administration give them everything they want. Do you really think social conservatives were the only people who supported or worked for Bush? And worked hard for him? And gave money, as I did? I resent that. We all have our issues that are important to us. I realize that for social conservatives, abortion is the main issue. But it isn't for everybody. I am much more concerned with Islamic fascism, the future of Europe, the Middle East, energy issues, etc. And I am just as Republican as any social conservative.

They often have their own agenda for breaking confidences as they are.

That a strict interpretation of the Constitution doesn't include a constitutional right to abortion on demand. Maybe you noticed that even a fairly loose interpretation of the Constitution doesn't include a Constitutional right to abortion on demand.

And if you think we're going to keep on voting, donating, and working for a party that doesn't really give us anything in return, then you must think we're really stupid and gullible, and we don't take very kindly to that.

 have rules where you cannot cross the border into another state to have an abortion..Imagine if that same state criminalizes abortion after the federal law is struck down.

The 2-party system inherently promotes a regression to the mean; no party can maintain a massive national edge over a long period of time without some kind of structural oddity (i.e. conservative Democrats in the South for several decades).

Moderates don't turn out and are far fewer in number than is commonly thought.

Thomas had real trouble before the Committee the first time around based on his qualifications.  What the Hill allegations did, if anything, was shift the debate from Is He Qualified to Did She Tell The Truth?

you should be pining for Luttig also. He wrote a very strong opinion in the Gitmo case.

Really?

I haven't followed this man's career that closely. I've pretty much pigeonholed him (perhaps incorrectly) as kind of a mainstream, Bob Bole-style conservative. Not a real fire-breather, but reliable when it counts. And I'd thought that, ideoligically, he really is pretty solidly conservative. What is it about a Janice Rogers Brown that would possibly cause him to oppose her nomination?

If she were nominated, she would absolutely be confirmed. It might be close, but she will get confirmed. And, undoubtedly, some Red State Democrats will tow the party line and vote against her which will only give their Republican, and hopefully conservative, opponants a sledge-hammer to use against them to expose them for the partisan hacks they are and expose the shroud of "independence" they always claim to have in general elections.

It's a win-win situation. WHY CAN'T BUSH SEE THAT!?!

Just to set record straight, Roe was the Burger court.

If President Bush were a conservative, he'd like JRB.

He's not though.  He's a Christian, but being a Christian on social issues doesn't make one a conservative.

enforce that?

the insult occurs when the addressee finds the comment insulting.  And I manifestly do find it insulting.  The simple truth is that social conservatives were either the margin of GWB's victory, or the largest percentage thereof, on the strength of his promise - speaking of loyalty and like virtues - to appoint strict constructionist judges.  And strict constructionism, as a method of constitutional interpretation, when applied to that document, ENTAILS the conclusion that Roe is illigitimate and must be overturned.  

We laboured in the fields of the party, and now our wage is due us.  Gonzales, and any others similarly squishy where it counts, would be theivery at this point in time.

Conservatism usually refers to domestic issues.  Those on the right do not have a monopoly on a strong foreign policy (see: Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson).

Can you list any domestic issues where you are conservative?

every day. As I watch Bush kick Lott and now Bennett and yet deem himself above answering the kook left incl Reid and Rangal's racist statements and play cute rhetorical games with the sup ct instead of unabashaedly defending conservatuve values, I do wonder how right you may be.

His lofty view of the "the office." So he treats his enemies better than his friends!

The alternative is that he is a conservative, but a cowardly politically calculating one.

Both suck.

Thanks for making me think.

they had Anita Hill wating in the wings and initially I think they really had no hope of opposing the nomination. I think Hill was pretty much a loose cannon who decided to oppose her old boss on her own, and of course once she arrived on the scene she was treated by Thomas' opponents like Joan of Arc ready to lead them to victory.

By the way this is pretty much my take on Paula Jones too, except for the detail that Ms Jones was initially "outed" by the article that mentioned a "Paula" as Clinton's willing paramour at which point she had some splaining to do to her anti-Clinton husband.

Besides, do you really think that you possess some mystical power to discern our innermost thoughts that surpasses even our own self-knowledge?

We will stay home.  Strict constructionism ENTAILS opposition to Roe.  Even Democrats know this.

So if we get a nominee who doesn't satisfy us - like Souter, O'Connor, Kennedy, ??Roberts?? - go elect Republicans without us.  See how far you get.

If we've done all this work to get to the point where we have another Republican President failing us on the issue of greatest import to us, then what would we really be giving up?

Don't for a minute think that the Rovian calculus is the degree to which blood on the Senate floor impairs WH ability to move forward on other goals vs. degree to which they feel they need the base for the same. We can stomp our feet as much as we like about broken promises, but in the end, realpolitik prevails.

My chips are on the table. Organizing voters, working the GOTV efforts, and voting, are not exactly transaction-free events. If the One Big Thing we've aimed for all these years can't be given, with a Republican President and a Republican Congress, well, I love my kids and wife. I see no reason to take time from them.

I AM REPOSTING A PREVIOUS COMMENT BECAUSE WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL ABOUT LETTER SEX, RACE AND GENDER CLOUD THE TRUE GOAL OF THIS NOMINEE.

While I appreciate the sensitivity that is being given to replacing Justice O'Connor with another woman it is concerning that too much attention is being drawn to the issue of gender "quid pro quo." Justice O'Connor's replacement should not be a woman for the sake of sexual equalization, but instead the most qualified person should be considered, regardless of gender or race.

Finding gender equalization, or dare I say affirmative action, within the realm of the Supreme Court nomination process does not provide for a fair and open process. Delving into these tit-for-tat issues makes our discussions no better than the single-issue litmus test of Senator Feinstein, and others.

is what me and many other liberals have been predicting  for quite a while.  It's something that I talk about with my conservative parents often, the gay marriage example that you use is the exact one I use when making the argument that it is inevitable.

you are still going to devote your time and energy, maybe not quite so much of either, because you are still going to feel compelled to fight the unacceptable alternative.

I remember your post from a few days ago about the importance of remaining steadfast against the "real enemy."  I'm starting to think that the "real enemy" is Alberto Gonzales.

All I know is that liberals seem to devote extraordinary amounts of time and energy into electing Democrats, and yet I don't see elected Democrats fighting for much of anything that liberals want.  I don't see any reason why it should be much different with the conservative grassroots.

Bluff or not, I will be pretty surprised if you really get what you want with this nomination.  I don't think the President is in any better of a spot to pick a fight than he was with Roberts.  Seems to me that Williams is about the best you can get.

Really?  No one over 50?  I appreciate the desire for  long-lasting impact, but surely someone who's 52 is still in the mix.  The under 50 crowd is a small list indeed, unless you're thinking Viet Dinh.

Over 60, I'd agree to cross off the list, unless they were off the chart in every other regard.  (Ted Olsen is one I would consider, for example, but probably only to fill a third or fourth vacancy.)

describe the Bush/Rove conventional wisdom of what constitutes realpolitik.

I just think their timid version pales in comparison to the results of unapologetic Reagan 60 % landslide conservatism. Reagan understood that the so-called middle includes more conservatives that can be led with a strong message that affirms their values.

Absent abortion, I don't really have much interest in getting involved in politics at all. And I mean that seriously. I have lots of other things to do with my time.

Apply Occam's razor.

Either there are sinister machinations going on at every step of the way, or this is simply President Bush doing what he thinks is right.

I'm inclined to believe the latter.

How do you enforce that?

You can't.  That would be an unconstitutional restriction on interstate commerce, as even Scalia and Thomas would recognize.

Only the federal government could ban crossing state lines for that purpose, and then only if Roe falls.

My point EXACTLY!! Xtian conservatives and their like minded supporters would immediately after getting a state wide ban on abortion, plug any loop hole by making it illegal to go across state lines to have one. This whole abortion debate is a sham and I don't know why social conservatives can't see through it! The Republican leadership is only using them for politics and would rather have the issue alive than have an unpalatable solution. Abortions are ugly and unfortunate, but the only true alternative is to annul it which the GOP will NEVER do. So they keep flogging the issue so many good hearted pro-lifers keep having a reason to go to the polls yet never get their desired result. Meanwhile, other worthy christian causes like global poverty & hunger, diseases in the developing world, educating and empowering women in close minded societies among others are ignored from political debate. A settlement should be one that makes abortions safe, legal but rare. It doesn't please anyone, but I cannot think of another workable solution devoid of partisanship.

Modern politics is a dirty business, in the end  business groups always get their packages (from both parties mind you) while true believers only get lip service. How I wish we had term limits, stronger ethics laws, public financing, fair and simple tax code and a balanced budget, so taxpayers know what they get and what they pay for.

Well, he's probably serving his last term in the Senate.  He was outspokenly proud of the Gang of 14 nonsense.  And he voted against Bork.

I'm afraid that dpcleary is probably right.

Interesting about 1992, yes many conservatives were unhappy with Bush I, my neighbors were among angry voters then. But in the end they voted to re-elect him because the alternative (Bill Clinton) was in their view worse. Perot was not that much a factor because he hurt both Clinton and Bush equally as a whole. In the end of Bush II picks Gonzales and were still able to run for re-election, y'all would still vote for him because you'd dread the second coming of Clinton more than the anti-christ

So what do individual state bans on abortion actually accomplish?  Everyone knows that pro-choice advocates would immediately start their version of an above-ground Underground Railroad to grant women in affected states the means to travel and acquire abortions.

Excellent point.  See also the Powell State Department.

a cynic would observe that that's why the GOP dawdles on overturning Roe, because they want to continue benefitting from the activism of folks like you.  So much energy has been focused on overturning Roe v. Wade that there's a very real chance that, if it happens, the movement will become considerably more complacent (as some on the liberal side have in recent years).

You may be right that this is the "put up or shut up" moment - I'm not looking to call you a liar - but from the perspective of the leadership, it seems like they haven't taken that threat seriously in the past, so why expect them to start now?

One thing that both sides have in common is a long history of disappointment in their political leaders, it seems.

and I'm a Chrisian conservative. Except that even the Federal government could not ban interstate travel (see right to assemble and other const provisions). Moreover, if a state has legalized abortion, only that state could restrict it to residents of the state.

stop fighting to stop to end the killing of babies and concentrate on really, really, really important stuff like empowering women.

Pass.

The possible snark and humor is almost too much to pass up.

Almost.

Look, I am not willing to see people I know will do really badly take over just because someone who I like does not do as well as I want.

Hang in there.

We are the right side of history in supporting the conservative movement.

Don't let the human weakness of the process spook you.

be available for independent contractor work on the war? Can we call you 35 days before post-roe elections?

Plus, and seriously, we will need to make sure the court STAYS anti-made up laws like Roe! eh?

is much more concerned in nominating a justice that will protect corporations and our capitalist economic system from the inevitable period when Dems regain control of government and try to move us towards socialism than he is in overturning a decison made 30 years ago that invariably gets Republicans free votes every election.

Think about it this way, if Roe never happened and we had no movement to legalize abortion, how many of those pro-life voters would still vote Republican?  I bet many would in fact not, as the bible is not exactly a capitalist document and many of the die hard pro-lifers come from what can be called democratic demographics.

but I haven't seen that from this WH.

TitansAFC hit the nail right on the head. Put up or shut up on this one Mr. President, or the Republicans are going to face the consequences. Follow through with the promise of nominating a Scalia or Thomas, or face going down in conservative ignominity as your father did.

This is just another form of the same old liberal whine "Why aren't people voting their economic interests?" answered in the form of "Christianity is hoodwinking those poor hicks!"

The Bible presents man created as a free creative being. Our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are grounded in the Bible. Free relationships between human beings include economic relationships to willingly buy and sell to the satisfaction of buyer and seller.

It is no accident that free societies perform better that those that go against man's free nature.

It's possible that you're right. But the greatest issue I see is whether or not children can be legally slaughtered in this country. If yes, and if no Party is going to do anything about it, especially after saying they would, well, you're welcome to think what you like. I'm all in favor of lower marginal tax rates, but not enough to get me up and running on a day-in, day-out basis.

a liberal.  I am a strong fiscal conservative who has voted straight Republican since 1996.  I simply have little tolerance for people who want to dictate to me how to run my private life (originally liberals, but now more and more social conservatives).

I was not saying that Christianity was hoodwinking anyone, what I was attempting to say was that without Roe inflaming certain demographics, those people may indeed vote differently or not at all.  It is an issue that drives people to the polls.

You implied that the administration would deliberately do the opposite of what it promised, in order to keep the abortion voters voting Republican.

That just the kind of garbage one sees all the time on the liberal portions of the Internet.

The greatest gift that the President could give is a JRB nomination.  

You think that Red State Democrats would have a tough time voting against JRB?  You are absolutely 100% wrong.  

JRB is a clear ideologue.  She is unabashed in furthering her political objectives.  Her writings outside of our court opinions are highly contentious and well outside the mainstream.  And unlike Robert Bork her writings aren't from 20+ years ago but rather from the past few years.  

Of course it is her CLEAR political bias that so appeals to social conservatives.  In her they sister a sister in arms.  Someone who would take up, not just Roe, but all of their big causes.

But this clear agenda also leaves her wide open to attack from the left.  Unions will talk about how she wants to do away with worker rights.  The AARP will talk about about she wants to do away with Social Security.  NARAL will bring up the fact that she received a NOT qualified rating from the California bar with the bar saying she was "prone to inserting conservative political views into her appellate opinions".  

The Democrats would then hang JRB on the head of both the Administration and every moderate Republican that even CONSIDERED voting for her.  

Truth be told I doubt that JRB would ever make it to a vote.  Her name would be withdrawn.  But of course the President knows this and that is why JRB isn't even a consideration for the job.

any of the 3 that were part of The Deal (JRB, Owen & Pryor). That's not the way this President plays. He won't try to rub the Dems noses in it. If a fight comes, he will fight it, but he won't seek it out.

I still think it will be a woman or Hispanic (or both)

...but agree with this.

It's reasonable to debate about whether or not what he thinks is right actually is right, but when people (either from the left or the right) look for sinister plots, it does tend to strain credibility.

Earl Warren - Warren Burger. Sounds like a bad Wheel of Fortune before and after puzzle.

there's anything sinister in this, just that hard political calculations are always a factor, if not the dominant factor, in these kinds of decisions.

Please add me to the membership list of "Liberals for JRB" as well.  And yes, I'm well aware of the high political price that will be paid by any party that dares to oppose a sharecropper's daughter.  I'm sure it would be equally as catastrophic as when blacks abandoned the party in droves for opposing Clarence Thomas.

And that is why Roe should not be overturned. The reason the court ruled therein was because of this issues that would be going on. If there is no federal recognition of the right to an abortion, states would have varying laws that put an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion and some of these states would definately criminalize abortion (the same nonsense that Coburn in OK was talking about). One can scream and holler how loud one wants, but the sense of the law still stands. No matter how much one does not like it...xtian conservatives should put their energy to better use. Since the Republican leadership already knows this, why do you think they'd never want to touch the issue in Congress..it only serves their purpose to keep it as a political issue so they can robotically program social conservatives on election day while paying only lip service to them in government

There are things infinitely more pleasant in the world than politics. And, if a disappointing choice is made by Bush, I will jump to the Constitution party.  There, at least, I feel like I was being respected.

You misunderstand what I am saying and I only referenced empowering women in backward societies to highlight a point. If, like some single issue voters, you are under the illusion that the GOP leadership cares about overturning Roe just as much as you do, then you don't know the political business. These guys like the Democrats, are professional politicians and speak from both sides of their mouths. Its been that way for years and the passion around abortion is not going to change that..it takes changing peoples' mind and hearts to make it rare and trusting people to know that not everything that is persmissible is beneficial. You know we will never eliminate all abortions (just like we won't eliminate other costly vices like drug use, alchoholism etc), but education is better than prosecution and that is what I would encourage Xtian conservatives to do, not waste their time being fooled year in year out by actionless GOP propaganda.

And he voted against Bork.

I see. I hadn't realized this.

I know the political business better than you do. In fact, there are several people who've posted who would also fit into that category. Some have even worked on campaigns, others have worked on the staff of senators/congressmen. So please, don't come over here and try to impress us with your insider knowledge. It isn't working.

The fact that you are posting on our website, not vice versa, should be a clue.

view of abortion, which I used to share pre-enlightenment, I can understand your desire that we pro-lifers direct our energies elsewhere. I used to make the same arguments. Of course, I can now admit the disingenuosness of same now.

However, I do not rule out the dersire of some elected repubs that care only about the issue as a political tool and  not about the moral issue.

I would say that congress has tried to pass a constituitional amendment banning abortion in  the past on several occasions.

Plus they have passed a partial birth abortion bill only to see it struck down.

We don't have the votes for an amendment.

you are no doubt right. Now, if we had not surrendered to the PC police so often in the past, as in this AM, we could be in a position to actually fight the libs on evn JRB, but

Reagan is dead.

And I know about Bork. But the dems had congress and the Bork fight was their low class scum coming out party!

The Gipper would win now withna GOP senate and would even get some dem votes.

The mute machiavellian "W" has no margin for error.

of "strict constructionist" and simply state that a candidate justice must be against Roe v Wade.  That has clarity while strict constructionist does not.  I've been looking at this issue as a lay person for several months now and I can find no clear, widely agreed to and operationally meaningful definition of a strict constructionist.

Of course, I'm not speaking as a legal scholar but if an informed and interested lay person cannot discern the clear meaning of a term, it's not very useful imo.

The proper mode is originalist.

and I suspect that the President does as well.  And that meaning is something along the lines of "originalist".  Even Scalia's textualism yields much the same result.  

I don't know why anyone would find that the term obsfuscates; I've been reading references to it for the last half of my life - and I'm 31 - and I sure as heck know what most conservatives mean by it.  But, if it baffles you, I will relent and resort to "originalist".  

Feel better?

Jeez.

I don't know where to even start in re: the claim that JRB is unstoppable.

It's easy to imagine Snowe, Collins, Chafee, Specter, Warner, McCain, and Graham collectively opposing JRB.

JRB is so toxic as a SC nominee that not even Ben Nelson of Nebraska would support her nomination, which produces the grand total of zero (0) Senate Democrats voting for her confirmation.

It's not hard to imagine her nomination being rejected 45-55, or something close to that.

Hard for me to believe some here claim following this course of action serves to help GWB recover his standing/popularity in the eyes of the American people.

Because "it" does not exist.

There is nothing "to see," when one claims that JRB is unstoppable.

That is not a view shared by most folks who watch how the current US Senate GOP Conference behaves these days.

No, never give us Gonzales!

Why go for Gonzales when there are conservative judges with track records that make them less of a mystery?

Bush should stop tapping his buddies for jobs.  Making Gonzales the Attorney General was more than enough of a show of friendship from W.  

If Roberts turns out to be a conservative, and if whoever he picks to replace O'Connor does as well, then that still only puts us at 4 conservatives, with Kennedy likely to become even more worthless as his new position as the swing vote would make an even more liberal track almost certain.  

So it will take replacing one of the liberals to finally deliver a conservative  majority.  Why risk that with Gonzales?  If Bush did, and Gonzales turned out as many of us fear, then Bush will have offered up the worst betrayal of all.

The only situation in which Gonzales should even be considered is if there somehow comes to be at least a solid block of 6 conservatives so that a mistake could be absorbed.  Of course such a scenario would probably require winning in 08, by which time the seemingly lone person who wants Gonzales will be back in Crawford.

If he wants part of his legacy to be putting the first Hispanic on the Court, then go for Emilio Garza.  If he's too old, then he should talk Estrada into coming back for a second round.  If that doesn't work, then he should just either let go of diversity-driven selection, or pick a conservative woman.

has not since coming to power even tried to test the legislative authority of Roe v Wade, except in cases of meaningless resolutions. Simply put, the GOP should, if they really care about this issue like some here do, put a vote to the floor on whether Roe is sound law or not and if not, should be repealed. They pushed for an assault weapons ban, estate tax repeal, CAFTA, Medicare prescription drug benefits, etc, then why not go to the meat of the matter and call the roll on Roe?

I'm game, but are you simply asking for a resolution to force every senator to stake his position on a court case? Maybe that would be a good idea.

They don't thave  the 2/3 needed for a const amend to overturn Roe.

Since when are you talking about? The GOP came to power in 1994 and has passed some anti-abortion laws. Or since 2000?

What am I talking about and what are you talking about? Why get so defensive when someone offers a different side to an issue? Was this forum patented by you? I don't have a website and I was simply discussing an issue and I don't know you anymore than you know me, so consider this before implying the superiority of your know how. If you are too impatient/intolerant to engage in meaningful discussion/debate, simply pass..

in 1999.

It is, indeed, worth thinking about why the GOP does not want to call the roll again.

You come on this site, obviously uninformed about politics in general and politics on the Republican/conservative side in particular and you begin to lecture on how things work. Sorry I don't let crap, pure unadulterated crap, like that pass.

Hey, the Administration had better hurry up and name someone, so Larry Tribe can take some shots at him or her, just like he's recently put down Chief Justice Roberts for his con law grade 28 years ago, and put down Justice Scalia for the supposed "caricature" of a dissent he wrote in Lawrence v. Texas. See here. Can't wait for more nutty attacks from Tribe.

Maybe you noticed that even a fairly loose interpretation of the Constitution doesn't include a Constitutional right to abortion on demand.

So you say, and yet this is exactly what the Supreme Court found in Roe vs. Wade.  Right to privacy supports a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. The 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments support the right to privacy.

White, writing for the dissent:

"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes."

But they were outvoted 7-2.

I'm with White, though.  This seems pretty thin.  Leave it up to the States.

Of course, Republicans in Congress could attempt to amend the Constitution to make sure that Roe vs. Wade exceeds the federal government's authority... but something tells me that's not on the agenda.

Post it again and we toss you in the Chuck without a wetsuit.

So you say, and yet this is exactly what the Supreme Court found in Roe vs. Wade.

I don't understand how that fails to make my point exactly.

White, writing for the dissent:

"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes."

But they were outvoted 7-2.

Let's leave aside the fact that the truth of Justice White's opinion is blindingly obvious, and the fact that 7 out of every 9 lawyers will generally find a way to make the law say whatever they want it to say. For now, we'll just focus on the fact that in the 70s and 80s, the courts were packed with folks who fashioned themselves "Legal Realists," and frankly admitted that they didn't give a rat's hindquarters what the law or the constitution said. If you're a Legal Realist and a judge, it's great because you don't even have to pretend to follow the existing law, or be ashamed about having written your own law later. You know what's best for those ignorant bumpkins whether they know it or not, so just go ahead and MAKE it a law! They'll thank you later!

So, what the court of 1973 did, and how they voted, really has no bearing whatsoever on what the Constitution says, even under a very loose interpretation.

Thankfully, Scalia is almost singlehandedly turning the tide against this ridiculous judicial tyranny. We were promised more like him. Implicit in that is that exhibit one of Legal Realism, Roe v. Wade, gets chucked out on its ear.

Politicians leverage issues to get votes.  Roe vs. Wade is a big issue.  Leon H said he doesn't even bother with other politics; another poster on this thread called it the issue that matters most.

What is the big differentiator between the Two Parties today?  Yes.  Sooo many people vote based on this issue, I imagine more even than gun control.

I'm not saying you're [plural] being used, but if I were running and my opponent was pro-choice, I know exactly what I have to tell you to get your vote.  That's power, man.

While the Roe vs. Wade issue is a great one to milk for votes (by both parties), there are others... maybe not so clear cut.  The question is, if the Roe vs. Wade issue evaporated, would the next most powerful leveragable issue mostly benefit the Dems or the Repubs?  I think the Repubs get the better end of the deal with Roe vs. Wade, ironically, since there's probably less of a gender bias to the conservative vote.

Of course, that can still be offset by the impressive loyalty Repubs show to their party irrespective of the issues...

in RI is running against Chafee.  I certainly know he is far more conservative than Chafee (shocking, I know) and he is very popular in the RI republican party.

Everyone needs to remember that months before election day last year Chafee said that he was not voting for W.  That is just absolutely unacceptable that a sitting senator would undercut a POTUS re-election bid like that.  I really don't care if we carry RI in '06, just as long as Chafee is a former senator.  We do not need people like holding elected office.  Snowe is close but Chafee is another Jeffords.

and maybe Spector (he took heat just getting the chairmanship, he would fry if he went against a W nominee.) but there is no way McCain, Warner or Graham vote against JRB.  Graham wouldn't be able to show his face in SC after that, McCain wants to be POTUS and Warner said he would have voted to end the filibuster of JRB, Owen and Pryor.  Except for Chafee, I think they all would make sure there was a floor vote.  The Dem's showed very poorly in the "do you think every nominee deserves an up or down vote" polling this summer.  The visibility of a SCOTUS nominee would ensure a vote, then collins, snowe and chafee could vote no.  Even Bork got an up or down vote.

I don't understand how that fails to make my point exactly.

You wrote:

Maybe you noticed that even a fairly loose interpretation of the Constitution doesn't include a Constitutional right to abortion on demand.

Yes, it does.  If it didn't, some states would have banned it by now.

The Supreme Court found a fairly loose interpretation of the Constitution that covered a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy (or "abortion on demand", as you put it.)

They have said the Constitution includes this right, so therefore it does, for better or worse.  To change that, you're either going to have to get the Supreme Court to correct itself, or amend the Constitution so it no longer includes this right.

They have said the Constitution includes this right, so therefore it does, for better or worse.

Hmm. I say that it does not, so therefore it does not.

Alternatively, the Supreme Court said that constitutionally, slaves were not people, so therefore they weren't.

I think your logic skills need sharpening.

Devilish Advocacy:  slaves were 3/5ths of a VOTER until they weren't ... women were 0/5ths of a VOTER until they weren't ... :)

My son, age 4, is likewise not eligible to vote.

If they give us an unknown (Souter), we should punish Republicans at the ballot box. I've said this  before, Republicans treat conservatives just like the Democrat party treats African Americans. They are all saying to each other that yeah, the base will be pissed off for awhile, but we wouldn't really sit it out and let the Democrats become the majority again. Dangerous game they are playing. I can say this, I sat out 1996!!

1992 as well.

The TX case on parental notification was his only pitch so far, and he ruled against the parents.  When you don't have much to go on, you go on what you have.

That this thread had gathered replies; because I post on your daughter blog CONFIRM THEM - as most RS judicial junkies do.

That said, I meant it. If I cannot overturn Roe by working for the "toughest" Republican in years then what is the point. I am staying home. My children want to read books with me. I need a solid reason for our family to give money and time to Republicans.

Hmm. I say that it does not, so therefore it does not.

Leon... you are not one of the three main branches of the Federal Government.  :-)  It works when they interpret laws--but no so much when mere mortals like you and I do.

Alternatively, the Supreme Court said that constitutionally, slaves were not people, so therefore they weren't.

Whatever they said, so it was.

Just like abortion, which is implicitly allowed by the Constitution.  If you don't believe me, just ask around why conservative states aren't banning it.

People who are in charge of interpreting laws make judgements like this all the time.  A gay marriage  is not worth the same as a straight marriage, for instance.  And when they say it, that's the way it legally is.

Seriously, all you have to do is get SCOTUS to say, "Screw this, abortion's an issue for the states, not us, right to privacy doesn't really apply" and then that becomes the way it is.

Right?  They say it, so becomes the law.  Period.

I think your logic skills need sharpening.

I won't deny it, but I've been honing my skills since I could talk.  Believe me, when you're a teenager who just wants to hang out with friends until midnight, and your father's a veteran  critical thinking professor who wants you home by 10pm, you do your best to build a cogent argument. :-)