O'Connor retires!


PDA






rick_reno
July 1, 2005, 10:26 AM
At last President Bush will get to appoint a justice.

If you enjoyed reading about "O'Connor retires!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
HonorsDaddy
July 1, 2005, 10:30 AM
Not Rhenquist? Hmm...

Funny thing is, Bush could have appointed as many SCOTUS justices as he wanted. Unless im mistaken, there is no minimum, or limit, on how many there should be. In fact, i seem to remember that FDR did something very much like that.


BTW Rick - love your tag line...

cracked butt
July 1, 2005, 10:36 AM
Hooray!

Message to republican Senators- grow a pair and use the NUCLEAR OPTION!

Newt Gingrich would be a good replacement :evil:

dolanp
July 1, 2005, 10:38 AM
I wonder if Rehnquist will do it soon. I can't imagine him staying on another term with his poor health.

What's a damn shame is none of those socialist justices are retiring. If conservative ones retire we end up the same or worse as before.

Dave R
July 1, 2005, 10:38 AM
Message to republican Senators- grow a pair and use the NUCLEAR OPTION! AMEN! Act like a Democrat, for once. As much as I dislike their platform, I admire their fight.

Don Gwinn
July 1, 2005, 10:40 AM
No, FDR TRIED to "pack the court." He failed, and it was probably the biggest debacle in any of his terms as POTUS.

rick_reno, you are FAST! You beat the Chicago Tribune's email alert.

Now comes the battle! Good thing, too. I think Ralph Neas might have snapped and turned to cannibalism if the waiting had gone on.

Lone_Gunman
July 1, 2005, 10:50 AM
Bush will, at best, get a moderate appointed to the SC.

boofus
July 1, 2005, 10:52 AM
Ron Paul for great justice. Move zig!

roo_ster
July 1, 2005, 10:56 AM
Janice Rogers Brown for SCOTUS! Thomas for Chief Justice!

O'Connor is gone...
Rhenquist is going...
JP Stevens is 84-85-ish...

I bet three SCOTUS appts will occur during GWB's second term.

Al Norris
July 1, 2005, 10:56 AM
I doubt that Rehnquist will retire... Until he absolutely has to.

If you do a little research, you will find that most Justices that retire, enter into obscurity and early death. Rehnquist has nothing outside of the law. O'Conner has her ranch, grandkids and a career in some NGO (can't remember which).

Don't Tread On Me
July 1, 2005, 11:06 AM
Well, if Bush and the GOP grow a pair, they should nominate a conservative. Hopefully one that respects the 2A and the constitution.


This isn't a major chance for us, but a possibel disaster. You see, O'Conner (at least to my recollection) wasn't that hostile to our principles. She is a moderate, that overall leans just barely to the right. So, we are trading a moderate for a potential conservative. Not a big net gain.


However, if we get a 'Moderate' like SOUTER was suppose to be (what a disaster that was, what a sell out, what a sucker job) then we are in big trouble. Bushy Jr isn't his dad thank God.


Still, this will tip the court on the issues where O'Conner has sided with the liberals. So it is a victory if a conservative can get in.


Reinquist is probably next. But at best, that would be a conservative for a conservative trade. We have to wait for a liberal to step down. There are 2 getting up there in age. There is Ginsberg, but I believe she can last this term. But then there is Stevens who wanted out back in 2000 thinking Gore would win. He's held on till 2004, but Bush won again. He is the serious tip vote that has liberals panicing beyond belief. I bet he'll stay on just to save the liberals.

Don Gwinn
July 1, 2005, 11:14 AM
To be an absolute pollyanna, Rhenquist going means the departure, not just of a conservative, but of a law-and-order geek who doesn't seem to have any strong principles beyond a deep reverence for quiet order and people knowing their places. We could possibly improve on that.

Reading The Brethren might change your view on the value of having a "conservative" like Rhenquist at the head of the court. I know it did mine.

dolanp
July 1, 2005, 11:26 AM
I think the old liberals on the court will bide their time until Democrats take control or they just die waiting.

Vernal45
July 1, 2005, 11:27 AM
God, please not Gonzales.


Judge Alex Kozinski would be a good start.

tulsamal
July 1, 2005, 11:30 AM
Reinquist is probably next. But at best, that would be a conservative for a conservative trade.

Even if you think Rhenquist is the perfect conservative judge, replacing him with another conservative gets you one other important thing: several more decades! He can't serve forever and hopefully Bush will nominate youngish conservatives who can be on the court for 30-40 years!

I know there are people here that don't like him but the current judge who I respect the most _intellectually_ is Scalia. He would be my dream Chief Justice. Threaten them with Thomas and then "compromise" with Scalia.

Obviously I hope some of the recent "group of five" decides to retire as well. I agree that replacing those is where we can actually tip the court's opinions.

Gregg

Don't Tread On Me
July 1, 2005, 11:48 AM
Scalia is a moron in comparison to Thomas. Thomas is by far the best justice. If we had 9 Thomas', we'd be back to the founders vision.


Not to say Scalia is bad, he is way better than Reinquist, and he is 1000x better than the rest of the court. The spread is amazingly wide. Scalia tends to tow the Republican line, which has proven to not always be Constitutional.

GT
July 1, 2005, 11:57 AM
I had heard the troll Ginsberg was sick and ready to go.

G

GunGoBoom
July 1, 2005, 12:06 PM
Ron Paul!!!!!!!!! (like that could happen). I would age 10 years in 10 minutes if I found out that A. Gonzales was nominated.

Scalia is a moron in comparison to Thomas. Thomas is by far the best justice. If we had 9 Thomas', we'd be back to the founders vision.

Not to say Scalia is bad, he is way better than Reinquist, and he is 1000x better than the rest of the court. The spread is amazingly wide. Scalia tends to tow the Republican line, which has proven to not always be Constitutional.

That's exactly right. I'd rank them Thomas, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and then the rest.

RealGun
July 1, 2005, 12:21 PM
I would request resignations from the whole bunch, guilty by association or just plain "old". Thomas' view on the Ten Commandments displays was dumb, definitely disappointing and certainly with some religious bias. He lost major points with me on the issue of Church/State separation. The issue was much more clear than he allowed.

What I think will happen is a number of retirements but some agreement that they wouldn't all announce at one time. The Senate would choke on processing a number of replacements in a short period, and the Court might be incomplete for some time waiting for replacements. Clearly 3-4 are ready to go and will likely do that one way or the other during Bush's term.

The only way to restore some confidence in that Court is to have some real turnover. If Bush doesn't consult with the Senate in some bipartisan way, his motive to stack the Court will be quite clear and start a virtual war over abortion and religion in general. The Dems would return to power in a heart beat. Judge selection should be done right in the best sense of the word. Make the Constitution mean something.

Vernal45
July 1, 2005, 12:47 PM
Just got a chuckle at all of this. One of our favorite Liberal Senators, Kennedy stated (I dont have the exact quote, so paraphrasing here), "that if Bush nominated a judge that would not uphold individual rights, the fight would be on."


Kennedy, Protector of individual rights. :barf:

BostonGeorge
July 1, 2005, 12:50 PM
Just got a chuckle at all of this. One of our favorite Liberal Senators, Kennedy stated (I dont have the exact quote, so paraphrasing here), "that if Bush nominated a judge that would not uphold individual rights, the fight would be on."

He's the one that needs to retire already, the people in this damn state can't get enough of him.

Silver Bullet
July 1, 2005, 01:13 PM
He's the one that needs to retire already, the people in this damn state can't get enough of him.
"Big Dig"

Mr. James
July 1, 2005, 01:23 PM
"that if Bush nominated a judge that would not uphold individual rights, the fight would be on."

He meant "individual right," singular, that being the right of any woman, any where, for any reason, to abort her unborn child any time from zero to 40+ weeks.

That is the sole "individual right" Kennedy upholds.

mrtgbnkr
July 1, 2005, 01:32 PM
I actually read somewhere that someone mentioned that DeWine would be a 'good' choice because he could get confirmed by the Senate. Of course he could, all of his liberal buddies would fall all over themselves to put him on the bench....and it would be about as bad a thing for the court, for the 2A, and for the country as anything I could imagine. I know we need to get him out of the senate, but putting him on the USSC would be far worse.

The Rabbi
July 1, 2005, 01:34 PM
Scalia is the intellectual horsepower on the court and the most brilliant jurist the court has seen in some time. Anyone who doesnt recognize that is just ill-informed. His colleagues are scared of him. I'd love to see Scalia as CJ.

In the meantime, the word is Gonzales will get it. Talk about a blown opportunity. I think they should really give the libs kenipshins and nominate: BORK!

rock jock
July 1, 2005, 01:39 PM
There is only a VERY short list of the reasons why I voted for Dubya. A SC nomination is at the very top of the list.

If he wastes this opportunity to place a strict Constitutionalist, it will forever seal his legacy.

Bruce H
July 1, 2005, 01:47 PM
Janice Rogers Brown please. If GW nominates Gonzales he needs tared, feathered, diped in vanilla and thrown to the hogs.

wmenorr67
July 1, 2005, 01:57 PM
Gonzales could be used as a sacrifice. Nominate him and have the senate disapprove and then nominate the acutal first choice. But then again maybe President Bush will nominate someone from this forum. There is nothing that states that a SCOTUS Justice has to be a lawyer. Most anyone on here has enough common sense to make fair judgements. Hell maybe I need to call the President and offer my services. I diffently will rule that most all "Gun Control" laws are unconstitutional. :evil:

RealGun
July 1, 2005, 02:01 PM
Scalia is the intellectual horsepower on the court and the most brilliant jurist the court has seen in some time. Anyone who doesnt recognize that is just ill-informed. - The Rabbi

If Scalia was such an intellectual giant, he would seem more consistent. He strikes me as the lesser of evils, if that's what you want. Neither he nor any of the others look to the Constitution first with any consistency. Although I don't see him as a candidate, I would give Thomas higher marks on that score, having less reverence for the tangled web of past rulings, interpreted to suit the desired outcome. I don't want social engineers pretending to be lawyers.

RealGun
July 1, 2005, 02:04 PM
Janice Rogers Brown please. - Bruce H

Why?

If GW nominates Gonzales he needs tared, feathered, diped in vanilla and thrown to the hogs. - Bruce H

Why?

Bruce H
July 1, 2005, 02:20 PM
Janice Rogers Brown believes that the government should be limited in its powers. They aren't the end all see all they want you to think. She is great on personal responsibility.

Gonzales is GW's buddy that is owed. There are far more qualified candidates. I would really like to see some nominees who weren't lawyers to begin with.

dolanp
July 1, 2005, 02:40 PM
Gonzales supports the AWB, so we know how he feels.

RealGun
July 1, 2005, 02:42 PM
Washington Post article - login required (http://tinyurl.com/d5any)


AP article (http://tinyurl.com/a4tva)

"A short list of candidates distributed in the White House within the last week had not included the name of any women or minorities, the official said."

"O'Connor's retirement caught the White House by surprise. The administration had been preparing for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to step down, and had been mulling how to replace the conservative anchor of the court, according to a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the private nature of the selection process.

Now, the White House has to reexamine its thinking because it faces a vacancy caused by the resignation of a moderate woman instead of a conservative man."

"Bush said he would recommend a replacement who will "faithfully interpret" the laws."

DigitalWarrior
July 1, 2005, 03:42 PM
If Gonzales were put up, then Democrats shot him down, it would be brought up frequently that the republicans are the friends of the people of Hispanic heritage.

Silver Bullet
July 1, 2005, 03:50 PM
That seems like a bad idea to me. What if the Republicans nominate him for that reason, and he gets accepted by the Dems because he's more liberal than what they expected ? If we're going to "sacrifice" a nomination, at least make sure he's solidly pro-RKBA just in case he's embraced.

308win
July 1, 2005, 03:56 PM
Be careful what you wish for you may get it. There was an article in the Columbus Dispatch that said that Frist had discussed a Court appointment with Sen DeWine(R) OH. If this is even remotely true and were to play out to the bitter end we would be one vote closer to losing any 2D Ammendment rights that we still retain.

Edited to add: Now John Ashcroft I could live with in spite of his obvious distaste for the separation of church and state. :D

stevelyn
July 1, 2005, 03:59 PM
Well, if Bush and GOP grow a pair, they should nominate a conservative. Hopefully one that respects 2A and the Constitution.

There is only a very short list of reasons I voted for Dubya. A SC nomination was at the top of that list. If he wastes this opportunity to place a strict Constituionalist, it will forever seal his legacy.

As if Bush will nominate a Constitutionalist that'll rule against McCain-Feigngold, the Constitution-gutting War on (some) Drugs, PATRIOT, etc..... :rolleyes:

Bush signed several unConstitutional bills into law and advocated passing more. What in the He!! could make anyone delusional enough to think he would be concerned about nominating a SC Justice that would follow the Constitution?? :fire: :cuss:

I'll be happy if he nominates someone who has at least READ the Constitution. :scrutiny:

RealGun
July 1, 2005, 04:03 PM
Thanks, stevelyn. We forget that Bush couldn't possibly do anything right.

The Rabbi
July 1, 2005, 04:16 PM
Thanks, stevelyn. We forget that Bush couldn't possibly do anything right.

How could he? He stole the first election and rigged the second, right? :banghead:

Dan from MI
July 1, 2005, 04:34 PM
The Michigan Conservative Supreme Court Block (Markman, Taylor, Young, Corrigan) would be good. So would Alex Kozinski and Judge Cummings (Emerson).

No Gonzalez.

Standing Wolf
July 1, 2005, 04:38 PM
If he wastes this opportunity to place a strict Constitutionalist, it will forever seal his legacy.

Considering the billions upon billions of the nation's hard-earned tax dollars he's wasted...

stevelyn
July 1, 2005, 04:43 PM
Thanks stevelyn. We forgot that Bush couldn't possibly do anything right.

Well, he is right in his effort to privatize socialist security. :D

My point is with all the other boneheaded stunts he's pulled, don't expect much when it comes to nominating a SC justice.

RealGun
July 1, 2005, 04:53 PM
How could he? He stole the first election and rigged the second, right? - The Rabbi

Yes. That is the standard Democrat line. :barf:

Excuse me. I just like a little objectivity once in awhile, glass half full, and all that. Otherwise, I would probably eat a bullet.

Augustus
July 1, 2005, 05:52 PM
O.K. , now I'm skeered. GW looked into Putins soul and saw a good man. He thinks El Presidente Fox and Saudi Arabia are our allies, and he chose Gonzales as A.G. He ain't real impressive in reading people. :uhoh:

Monkeyleg
July 1, 2005, 06:21 PM
The Dem's are already all over the news, threatening to block any nominee who is too conservative. They want "bipartisanship."

I'd be willing to bet the Dem's would even block Gonzales. So why bother? Go for a strict constructionist and let Frist employ the nuclear option if necessary.

BBB! (Bring Back Bork)

beerslurpy
July 1, 2005, 06:56 PM
Yeah I am deathly afraid of the Mexican Souter Frog. But I think it is unlikely since Gonzales is:
-historically pro-abortion so far
-statist
-anti-gun
-of dubious ethical fiber
-and would have to recuse himself a lot thanks to being white house counsel and AG

If the senate was controlled by liberal democrats, Gonzales would be an easy sell, but it isnt and republicans would be foolish to lose sight of that. The last thing the republican party needs is a nomination that pushes the court to the left and pisses off their entire conservative constituency.

My personal hope is that we get Janice Rogers Brown. Here is why I think it would be good:
-she is a black woman from a poor family who overcame racial descrimination without govt handouts. A good replacement for O'Connor and she is also a great role model for blacks who are considering embracing conservatism.
-she is intellectually very strong, likely an equal to Scalia and definitely miles above O'Connor, who was perhaps average in this respect. She has the same combative approach and sarcastic style as Scalia.
-she disapproves strongly of perversions of the constitution such as happened during the New Deal (which itself she considers to be a socialist abomination). In this respect she is very much like Thomas and would likely not hesitate to overturn "wrongly decided" precedent such as Wickard v Filburn etc.
-she has a respect for gun ownership although she did not attempt to incorporate the 2nd when presented with lack of a RKBA in the CA constitution

Standing Wolf
July 1, 2005, 08:00 PM
Go for a strict constructionist and let Frist employ the nuclear option if necessary.

How, pray, would Frist find enough intestinal fortitude to do such a thing?

publius
July 1, 2005, 08:22 PM
I'd like to see Kozinski nominated. Fat chance, I know.

Rabbi:
Scalia is the intellectual horsepower on the court and the most brilliant jurist the court has seen in some time. Anyone who doesnt recognize that is just ill-informed. His colleagues are scared of him.

Scalia (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html) twisted modern precedents into commerce clause authority over just about anything in the Raich case, while Thomas (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html) stuck to the language and the intended meaning of that language, and actually made sense. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is just ill-informed. :neener:

longeyes
July 1, 2005, 08:37 PM
Easy decision for Dubya: Jeb all the way. If Jeb's busy, go for the Old Man as a ceremonial tip of the hat. :D

bjbarron
July 1, 2005, 09:59 PM
Ann Coulter has a JD from a prestigious law school.

Nominate her.

After the Dims freak about her...Bush could nominate an ax murderer* and they would look moderate.

*Should be one in the Kennedy clan somewhere?

saltydog
July 1, 2005, 10:14 PM
If GW nominates Gonzales....

:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

Waitone
July 1, 2005, 10:27 PM
Gonzales may be Bush's bud but he also the guy democrats demonize as writing the legal opinion which allows the US to torture, enslave, etc our poor innocent middle and far eastern types.

How can democrats explain trying to save the world from a torturer then turn around and vote him to SCOTUS.

Beside that, Bush's base will have a meltdown. I can't wait to see how he will ***poof*** himself outta this one.

FNFiveSeven
July 1, 2005, 11:06 PM
Who cares? The recent rulings of the SCOTUS declared that the feds can regulate home grown weed and "relocate" people out of their privately owned homes. Clearly the SCOTUS is degraded into a political side show, a pathetic joke, and another sad testement to the gradual destruction of our once great nation. Don't believe me? Just ask Ruth Bader "I think we should consider the laws of foreign governments in our legal decisions" Ginsburg. :barf:

txgho1911
July 1, 2005, 11:13 PM
is El Tejon on the short list?

peacefuljeffrey
July 2, 2005, 01:28 AM
I know there are people here that don't like him but the current judge who I respect the most _intellectually_ is Scalia. He would be my dream Chief Justice. Threaten them with Thomas and then "compromise" with Scalia.

Scalia may be good in certain areas, really good in others, but *** was up with his siding with the police in that case about searching cars for drugs?! He (and others) essentially upheld warrantless searches. If I am stopped for speeding, and there is NO other reason to suspect that I have drugs, IT IS A WARRANTLESS SEARCH TO BRING A DOG AROUND WHOSE ONLY PURPOSE AS A POLICE DOG IS TO SEARCH FOR DRUGS!

*** was up with the justices in that case? Are they SOOOO conservative that the bu!!????? war on drugs means so much to them that they will back away from their 4th Amendment protective stances?! :cuss: :fire: :banghead:

-Jeffrey

peacefuljeffrey
July 2, 2005, 01:30 AM
Just ask Ruth Bader "I think we should consider the laws of foreign governments in our legal decisions" Ginsburg.


That itself should be grounds for the impeachment and removal of a Supreme Court justice.

To state outright that anything other than the Constitution of the United States of America should guide the decisions of the Supreme Court seems, to me, tantamount to treason.

-Jeffrey

thorn726
July 2, 2005, 03:07 AM
well here's a quote from something posted on tribe.net about the court issue=

{personally i am not a fan of Bush, and am more liberal than conservative, but they totally lost me here, so hard to be me. (heheh) i agree with them on most issues, but this below is garbage, i hardly want the kind of judge they are looking for=} quoted=
Sensible Gun Control
The rights and safety of Americans: In the past decade, 5-4 rulings by the Supreme Court have struck down a federal law prohibiting firearms in the proximity of schools and quashed a part of the Brady Act pertaining to background checks on handgun practices. Right-wing justices could seal the fate on these and other gun control measures that protect the rights and safety of all Americans.

Second Amendment challenges: Since 1939, the Supreme Court has refused to revisit the question of the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Recently, the Court dealt a blow to the NRA and other pro-gun lobby groups by refusing to review two cases that the gun lobby believed could nullify many existing gun control laws. Both of these challenges were based on a belief that the Second Amendment guaranteed the rights of individuals to carry weapons. During John Ashcroft’s tenure at the Justice Department, the department reversed its long-standing opposition to this interpretation, embracing the view that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to carry guns. New right-wing justices could agree with this interpretation and join the Supreme Court with pivotal votes that would overtun many federal and state gun control laws. Indeed, Justice Clarence Thomas has already argued that Congress has no authority to pass gun control laws.

here's the full page link-
http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.839269/k.67D9/The_Stakes_Issue_by_Issue.htm

RealGun
July 2, 2005, 10:03 AM
Looking over the list of supposed candidates, I figured that Senator John Cornyn, from Texas no less, would be a stategic choice for Bush. He favors Bush's issues and would get less resistance from the Senate during confirmation. I don't see this as a minority opening or that there is any particular female quota on the Court. Creating an opening in Texas for the Senate could be interesting.

Another good one, who I expect would not be ferociously attacked during confirmation by other than the usual prosecutorial, partisan suspects like Boxer, would be Larry Thompson.

J. Harvie Wilkinson looks like the moderate to fill O'Connor's balancing role, if that's a priority, which I doubt.

In my opinion, Gonzalez has no chance and wouldn't make sense. Getting an AG was tough enough, and they will leave well enough alone there.

I would think that Scalia would be promoted to CJ ultimately. He is young enough to be around for awhile, theoretically, and being a known quantity would instill some confidence in the court. He frequently aligns with Rehnquist, so no big disturbances there. Scalia has made himself unpredictable, which could be an asset.

longeyes
July 2, 2005, 11:45 AM
Never underestimate Bush's stubbornness. Once he gets that vision thing revved up it's no stopping him. If he's sweet on Gonzalez it will be Gonzalez no matter what anyone else thinks, no matter how politically destructive or downright nutty. Is there a 12-step program for Stubbornness?

Waitone
July 2, 2005, 12:10 PM
And to what vision do you refer?

A North American Community?
Free flow of labor unhindered by things like borders and national sovereignty?
Americans greeted as liberators in Iraq?
How 'bout this one? Compassionate conservatism.
Maybe free and unfettered political campaigns in the US.
Here's one. Fiscal responsibility.
And my personal favorite----judiciary restrained by the constitution.

Bush goes through life like someone going to an all-you-can-eat buffet. Pick a little from here and little from there. Pretty soon you have a big mess on your plate and all you can do is leave the mess for someone else to clean up.

Bush has said a lot of things about what kind of justices he wants on SCOTUS. He also said a lot of things about what he wanted in a Campaign Finance reform bill. He settled for nothing of what he wanted and with extreme cowardice punted his responsibility to the courts. He got everything he deserved. American citizens were the ones who took it in the end. We'll see what he really is based on what he does.

RealGun
July 2, 2005, 01:15 PM
I don't follow the fixation on Gonzalez except re an AWB. All Bush will do is bring more Texans to Washington, directly or by creating openings moving people around.. In addition, minorities definitely are considered, but probably not for this Court opening. The minority that really resonates in Texas in Mexican heritage.

If there is going to be a big fight over religion and related issues like abortion, this will probably be it. The filibuster issue could be dealt with by Bolton's nomination, ruling out filibusters in all executive sessions, whether or not judicial nominations. The compromise would be allowing nominations to be held in committee, dealing with that bottleneck as a separate rules issue and different dynamic.

RevDisk
July 2, 2005, 05:47 PM
If Gonzales gets nominated, oh boy. We're in trouble. He's the guy that thought up the brilliant idea to attempt to gut the Geneva Convention, using Gitmo to store any prisoners without civilian court oversight, the "coercive interrogation" thing, exemptions to the US Code Title 18 Chapter 118 Section 2441 (war crimes statute), etc etc. Mind you, he has not just applied these to "unlawful combatants" but also US citizens. Ask Padilla. Gonzales also spends a healthy amount of time trying to expand the PATRIOT Act and other liberty gutting legislation. Etc etc.

Sorry, anyone that actively supports arresting US citizens and holding them indefinitely without trial should never even be considered for the Supreme Court.

To keep it RKBA, Gonzales has not shown himself to be exactly pro-RKBA. At best, he's more interested in simply maintaining the status quo. This is not bad, of course, but it's not exactly good either. His singular pro-RKBA measure was stating that the 2A is an individual right.

With a stroke of the pen, Gonzales could effectively put the ATF in a cage. More favorable definitions of "sporting purpose", removing 7.62x39mm from the armor piercing pistol round catagory (not sure the official terminology, basically the steel core 7.62), and dozens of other pro-RKBA measures. Small things individually, but they'd add up.

RealGun
July 2, 2005, 10:01 PM
If Gonzales gets nominated, oh boy. We're in trouble. He's the guy that thought up the brilliant idea to attempt to gut the Geneva Convention, using Gitmo to store any prisoners without civilian court oversight, the "coercive interrogation" thing, exemptions to the US Code Title 18 Chapter 118 Section 2441 (war crimes statute), etc etc. Mind you, he has not just applied these to "unlawful combatants" but also US citizens. Ask Padilla. Gonzales also spends a healthy amount of time trying to expand the PATRIOT Act and other liberty gutting legislation. Etc etc. - RevDisk

The Geneva Convention doesn't apply. What do you want to do, send them to a country club? Osama's buddies from Afghanistan are lucky to be alive.

Sorry, anyone that actively supports arresting US citizens and holding them indefinitely without trial should never even be considered for the Supreme Court.

He doesn't actively support any such thing. Next question.

To keep it RKBA, Gonzales has not shown himself to be exactly pro-RKBA. At best, he's more interested in simply maintaining the status quo. This is not bad, of course, but it's not exactly good either. His singular pro-RKBA measure was stating that the 2A is an individual right.

There is no point here. You are trying not to give him credit. His AWB position would be of more concern.

With a stroke of the pen, Gonzales could effectively put the ATF in a cage. More favorable definitions of "sporting purpose", removing 7.62x39mm from the armor piercing pistol round catagory (not sure the official terminology, basically the steel core 7.62), and dozens of other pro-RKBA measures. Small things individually, but they'd add up.

Ha! A lot of people could do a lot of things. Dream on, if you are saying that a Supreme Court candidate has to be a pro-gun favorite.

The Rabbi
July 2, 2005, 10:26 PM
Let's face it: Bush could nominate Ted Kennedy and the Liberals would scream about it. So to heck with them. Pick the best-qualified guy, make sure there are no skeletons in his closet, and push it with the "nuclear option" always available. Let the Dem cry foul and get on with life.

If you enjoyed reading about "O'Connor retires!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!