AG Gonzales for Supreme Ct? NO WAY!

On the record as being for assault weapons bans etc.
Better start calling the Whitehouse now. Too bad the NRA will probably again sit on their hands....
CT :cuss: :banghead: :fire:

Oconnor was a moderate and probably will be replaced by one

Bush is a strict constructionist. Remember, he said that about 1000 times during his 2004 campaign. We have nothing to fear, right?

I wouldn't bet against it, and I'm no fan.

It would fit the bill, lol Gonzalez tipping the scales in court. Anyone still feel their state is safe?

When you call GWB about Gonzales A couple other thing to tell him.
1-Don't want the Patroit Act
2-Want the borders closed
3-Don't want CAFTA
4-Before you hangup be sure to thank him for pushing all the pro gun bills for us

Need the White House telephone number? I'm sure he will listen to the common workin person. Hasn't he since he got back in? LOL

I'm sure he will listen to the common workin person.

Of course he will listen, he's just like us having worked his way up from nothing to President of the United States. His life story is best captured in this Horatio Alger tale "Ragged Dick and Struggling Upward" (http://print.google.com/print?id=hbwageToONwC&dq=horatio+alger&oi=print&pg=3&sig=r6q2t_odvL6kOP4m96oejg149ug&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhoratio%2Balger)

Gonzales has a hell of a story of accomplishment though even if I dont agree with him. So does that guy Estrada

LOL - people beating up on Bush, and he hasn't said a word about who he will pick. Does Bush-hate give psychic powers too? More like psychotic powers.

He's an idea - let us WAIT for him to nominate someone, THEN complain about it. I'm sure anyone he picks will be wrong anyway, right?

LOL Seen enough he has done
1- Patroit Act
2- Campaign Reform (So much for free speech)
3-Call the Minutemen Vigilanties
4-Push for his guest worker crap ( amnesty for illegals)
5-Pushing for CAFTA ( If you like NAFTA you'll love this)
Why would anyone need to see more unless they are blind
Oh yea making Gonzales AG to start with. Know he is Pro Gun and in favor of sovereignty for our country. LOLBoy glad we got all the conservatives elected in Nov. Aren't you? Whhat gets me the most I to voted for all the jerks. Won't do that again i'm smart enough to know when i've been sold down the tubes. See allot of people try and defend GWB GUess they can't see the loss of freedoms we have had under him. Hey I always thought that a conservative was in favor of smaller goverment. Better tell GWB what a conservative should stand for lol

Gonzales is the wrong man for the job.

"He's an idea - let us WAIT for him to nominate someone, THEN complain about it. I'm sure anyone he picks will be wrong anyway, right?"

That's actually pretty fair, if you are a fan of GWB it is hard to see much positive stuff said, so it must seem like everyone is just blindly against him.

So I'm not saying anything bad about him, just that Gonzales has no place in a higher court.
He supports anti-gun legislation.
If there are enough very very anti-gun people in the SC they will then decide to hear a case on the 2nd amendment, and they will read it the same way the read 'public good' in the 5th amendment - ie they'll read it to mean the opposite.
He has shown disrespect for law and customs, as shown by AG jail in Iraq, which is in large part due to his decisions.

Maybe I'm wrong on some points, if so I'd like learn it. But as far as I know right now, this would be the worst possible appointment to the SC. Someone who has tasted the thrill of breaking the rules and making new ones, and has been rewarded for it - and they are not going to break rules you want them to.

Just a guess, but GWB will find some previously unmentioned conservative-leaning moderate to replace O'Connor. All of the news discussion I have seen certainly suggests the expectation that a moderate will be replaced with a moderate.

Unfortunately, I suspect the Republicans will bend over backwards trying to find a moderate so that they can make the Democrats happy and get the nominee confirmed easily. And the Democrats will demand a candidate with "mainstream views" (e.g. a flaming liberal who swears allegiance to Roe v. Wade) and will threaten a filibuster until they get their way.

My $0.02: I wish the Republicans would dig in and go toe to toe with the Democrats to get a strict-constructionist to replace O'Connor - and another one to replace Rehnquist. It would be an ugly fight, but it could be won. In the long run, a solid strict-constructionist majority on the Supreme Court would be better for the country than the Republicans retaining control of Congress and the Presidency. However, I expect our esteemed Senators to do exactly what they think best ensures their political careers rather than doing what would be best for the country.

I say wait until GWB Nominates someone then Raise H--l if not a suitable choice.

I use the term "spinelessrepublicans" for a reason. Very shortly we will see if Bush wants republicans to continue in the majority. He's a lame duck. Everyone else in the republican party is not. If the spinelessrepublican base has had it right up to here (like I think) Bush would be well advised to pander to his own party. Then again, who knows what kind of deal elements of the spinelessrepublican party will cut. Trent Lott has absolutely no credibility yet he's back in the leadership game.

Yes, it is advisable to wait until Bush nominates a judge before commencing criticism. Its just the party has such a sterling history of screwing up either for no reason or at an inopportune time. Political novices just plain expect 'em to screw the pooch. . . . . again.

LOL Seen enough he has done
1- Patroit Act
2- Campaign Reform (So much for free speech)
3-Call the Minutemen Vigilanties
4-Push for his guest worker crap ( amnesty for illegals)
5-Pushing for CAFTA ( If you like NAFTA you'll love this)


You left of "No Child Left Behind"

LOL Seen enough he has done
1- Patroit Act
2- Campaign Reform (So much for free speech)
3-Call the Minutemen Vigilanties
4-Push for his guest worker crap ( amnesty for illegals)
5-Pushing for CAFTA ( If you like NAFTA you'll love this)

Homeland Security, TSA, et al.

Don't forget he swore to sign the AWB and supported renewing it.

In the long run, a solid strict-constructionist majority on the Supreme Court would be better for the country than the Republicans retaining control of Congress and the Presidency.

Gee, I know this sounds like an off the wall thought... but why not find a strict Constitutionalist? (Definitely not the same thing as a constructionist)

but why not find a strict Constitutionalist? (Definitely not the same thing as a constructionist)Okay, I'll bite.

A strict constructionist is a judge who resolves constitutional cases solely on the basis of the language and original understanding of the constitutional text.

What's a strict Constitutionalist?

.

Gonzales was parrotting Bush's opinion on the AWB - so why is Bush such a good guy?

So calling the White House about gun issues probably ranks you with the guys calling to get Bush to do something about immigration.

Bush doesn't care about such stuff. It's money for the wealthy and trying to figure out how Rummy went dummy in planning Iraq.

In the long run, a solid strict-constructionist majority on the Supreme Court would be better for the country than the Republicans retaining control of Congress and the Presidency. However, I expect our esteemed Senators to do exactly what they think best ensures their political careers rather than doing what would be best for the country.
x10

As to waiting until GWB nominates someone before sending him your opinions, here's my reason why we should NOT wait: "Political capital." Once he nominates someone, he has put his neck out there, and he suffers considerable loss of face if his nominee is defeated, or if he is forced to withdraw the nomination.

IMHO it is far better to remind Mr. President of that before he puts a name forward, and to suggest to him that his own political standing will be better served by advancing a candidate who will not encounter serious oppostion from conservatives as well as from liberals.

After the name has been announced is too late. From that moment forward it's all about theatrics.

AG Gonzales: Closet liberal waiting until he has reach the top of the ladder
to come out. :barf:

Bush has been lifted up all his life by "the invisible hand." So, remarkably, has Gonzales. Could it in fact be the same hand?

Bush is nothing if not stubborn: he will pick Gonzales "because it's the right thing to do."

I will be delighted to find myself wrong.

Okay, I'll bite.

A strict constructionist is a judge who resolves constitutional cases solely on the basis of the language and original understanding of the constitutional text.

What's a strict Constitutionalist?

It's my pet term as there doesn't seem to be another term that applies for someone that intends to follow the Constitution, as it was intended. According to Wikipedia and various dictionaries, the everything before the "and" is correct. Allegedly, a strict constructionist would not read into the "original understanding" of the Constitution but rather exactly what it says in print. That is, not look into the 'original understanding' of the Constitution by researching additional material from the time it was written.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

"Adherents look strictly at the text in question rather than relying on metaphysical ideas such as natural law, or by trying to glean legislative intent from contemporaneous commentaries or legislative debate."

"The underlying rationale of strict constructionism is that if a legislature truly wants to enact a particular law, they are quite capable of writing it down in plain English and passing it, and it is not the job of judge to play around with legal fictions or psychoanalysis to reconstruct what the legislature's subconscious intent could have been."

In other words, a strict constructionalist would not be inclined to read the Federalist Papers or any other material written by the Founding Fathers, where they go more in depth on what they wrote down in paper.

Small semantics really, but I notice a lot of so-called "strict constructionists" regularly ignore the Constitution and very much its original intents.

Yea, I still want to know who juiced is exit from an 8 year contract with the Air Force. You just don't decide to go to another school once you are in an academy. Who signed off at the academy? Who agreed to it in the Air Force? Who are the relevant political figures involved?

The dood is a perfumed prince.

Gonzales was parrotting Bush's opinion on the AWB - so why is Bush such a good guy?

I have to agree with GEM. Bush is no friend of gun owner.
Bush favored extension of the AWB. :cuss:
Sen. Warner [VA] introduced legislation for the AWB extension for Bush and the Republican Party. :evil:
Bush lobbied congress for passage of the extension of the AWB. :what:
Bush said he would sign it the day it reached his desk. :banghead:

BUSH :barf: is NO friend of gun owners.

Let's impeach Bush. He has only runied this country. :cuss:

http://www.impeachbush.tv/

I hate to break it, but Bush is more like a symptom, than the disease.

Do you really think he had a master plan to get elected President and do all this stuff (and not do)? It's impossible, it's highly unlikely at best. Maybe you can look at Arnold Schwartzenager (sry) and see that he planned big things, but not GWB. GWB was made what he is and placed where he is. As a person he is pretty much irrelevant, I find the 'Democrats' antagonism of the person to be childish and pointless.

If you want to cure the disease, you find the institution/organization/guys that are at the root of the problems. What's the point in impeaching a guy that is really not that different than any of the last presidents, when he's done anyway. There's a new replacement in the mix, two more guys from rich North-Eastern families that went to the same college and joined the same secret homoerotic fraternity and went into state politics then move into the presidential race will be there to represent the 'reds' and 'blues' next election, and people will talk about impeaching whichever one wins. And repeat, and repeat, until they just stop bothering with elections.

I have no idea who's the responsible ones, but if I hate to take a shot in the dark I'd say he problems have something to do with the 'Federal Reserve', in some way shape or form. When private individuals have control of the money supply and national economic policies, I'd say that's one likely suspect to start the investigation on.

Let's impeach Bush. He has only runied this country.

And replace him with Cheney? Now there is a 'solution' worse than the problem.

Strict Constitutionalist?

From your description, that seems to be what some call a "textualist."

And another source says that part of our current problems -- part, not all -- is that today's lawyers are well versed in general legal pratices and procedures, and even have a good understanding of common law, but are given little preparation for working with statutory law.

And many, if not all of our problems, seem to be arising from laws created by legislators...

Let's impeach Bush. He has only runied this country. - cbsbyte

Actually, it was the Democrats. :neener:

Bush: 'Tone Down' Attacks Against Gonzalez

The Associated Press
Tuesday, July 5, 2005; 10:01 AM

WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Monday defended Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is the target of conservative critics seeking a hard-liner for the Supreme Court, USA Today reported.

The president said he will interview prospects himself after he sorts through candidates over the next few weeks to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the newspaper said in a story posted late Monday on its Web site.

"Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine," Bush told USA Today. "When a friend gets attacked, I don't like it."

The president appealed to special interest groups running ads and mobilizing supporters for the anticipated fight over the Supreme Court nominee to "tone down the heated rhetoric."

Some congressional Republicans were cautioning against Gonzales, a close friend of Bush whom they believe isn't steadfastly conservative on issues like affirmative action and abortion.

Asked whether women and minorities are on his list, Bush said he is reviewing "a diverse group of citizens."



he's hearing us, but he's not hearing us

There is only one party - the dudes who are elected. They take turns ruining the country while they all get together at the country club.

Each has some crackpot social issue that they trot forward to work up the masses and kept them diverted from their job going to India or China while they get richer. A friend of mine well into his middle age, sees his job as a tech writer go to some schmuck in India. However, we leap into action for a flag burning amendment or Terry Schiavo. Neither party has the slightest interest in immigration. Notice that no one has done squat about gas prices or energy independence from those charming cultures in the Middle East.

Neither set of the top echelons of either party care about the working guy or certainly neither care about the RKBA.

However, it is of crucial importance to fret about Roe v. Wade or gay marriage. If gays get married or abortion banned, does that get my friend a job or stop the source of terrorism (not Iraq - George - but your Saudi buddies)?

"Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine," Bush told USA Today. "When a friend gets attacked, I don't like it."Then get out of the kitchen and take your buds with you. Welcome to the NFL. Can't take full-body contact? Find another sport. :fire:

Bush is in the position of making a decision which will please no one and irritate everyone. When in such situations it is easy to decisions based on personal likes and dislikes. That said, I think Gonzales is highly likely to be Bush's nominee. I think the guy is well past party politics.

Gonzales has just become AG, and certainly not easily. Bush could well name him to the SC later. I don't see naming someone with established resistance as a good move at this particular time. I think what we will see is someone to ostensibly justify invoking the nuclear option, allowing the Democrats no excuses or sympathy for being obstructionist. Then the way would be clear to slam dunk the more difficult nominees, very possibly Gonzales. That's assuming Republican Senators stay together and make it a partisan battle. That will be the part that cannot be taken for granted.

Bush is in the position of making a decision which will please no one and irritate everyone.

Not me - I'll support his choice, even if it's Old Shakey (Butch Reno). :neener:

Bush is telling his faithful to tone down the rhetoric. Yes, we are hyperactive children who need our meds. After all, it's only the Supreme Court and the future of our Republic; not much to worry about, just take this little pill with the warm mllk and cookies, be happy, and shut up, serfs.

Meanwhile, the old collaborator, Arlen Spector, who should never have been permitted anywhere near his current political post, is trashing the concept of Originalism itself. Why stop with Borking Bork, why not Bork the Constitution itself?

Bush will go with his feelings. He is part of the "if it feels good, do it" generation, after all. Feeling is what counts, and if those feelings can be justified by religious fervor, so much the better. This is tribalism's cousin, cronyism, nothing more.

If we don't get the Gonzo Factor in play here I'll be very surprised. Bush has already said he won't be swayed by what the Rest of Us think. He'll follow his own lights. God save the Republic.

Bush will be remembered as The Big Tease, the man who squandered eight years in office and couldn't turn the ship around, wasting the opportunity of a generation. His advertising is just dandy but in the end he can't, or won't, deliver.

His advertising is just dandy but in the end he can't, or won't, deliver.Actually, I think his delivering. Not what his voters expected but what his handlers demand.

That may be.

Perhaps all this shows is that Rockefeller, and all he stood for, never died.

Let's impeach Bush. He has only runied this country.
I had to check the url, from the Bush-Hate/republican bashing on this thread, I thought I had wondered into DU.

Bush will be remembered as The Big Tease, the man who squandered eight years in office and couldn't turn the ship around, wasting the opportunity of a generation. His advertising is just dandy but in the end he can't, or won't, deliver.
Hallelujah and Amen! Him and his Republican do-nothings in congress. That says it all.

I had to check the url, from the Bush-Hate/republican bashing on this thread, I thought I had wondered into DU.

Is anyone here happy to bash Bush? I don't think so. We had enormously high hopes for him. The timing was right to Stop the Insanity. Have we? Not by a long shot. I see Bush as somehow unformed, that's the word that pops to mind when I think of him.

He hears criticisms of Gonzales and his reaction is to want to defend his good friend and dig in his heels. I'm sorry, this isn't admirable, it's childish. The attacks on Gonzales have to do with Gonzales's attitudes and policies, not with him on a personal level. Politics is for serious adults. Bush acts as if this is all about some personal principality, not a Republic. Now he wants the debate toned down? Is he really aware of what's at stake here and how strongly a lot of people, on both sides, feel about it? That emotional intensity is not going away; nor should it in light of what we are dealing with.

Bush is telling his faithful to tone down the rhetoric. Yes, we are hyperactive children who need our meds. - longeyes

Nonsense! You are saying that he can't even make a comment defending his staff and promoting a more dignified process and be judged as having been appropriate. That is just more of the same old irrational Bush hatred. There are enough real issues without fabricating this baloney. I am not against the war in Iraq, so maybe I can be more objective. Although I voted for him twice, I am not an apologist by a long shot.

"When you are in command, COMMAND."

"I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the street [talking about his brother, a Houston SWAT officer]. The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue."
- Alberto Gonzalez, Pres. Bush's nominee for Attorney General, quoted at http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050118-105238-1862r.htm

No strict constructionist could read the 2nd Amendment and believe the AWB is constitutional. If that part of the Constitution is important to you then you need to find another person to support.

This nomination will tell us whether Bush truly believes in strict construction, and thus, in the Constitution. Making nominations to the Supremes is the most important thing Bush will do. We now have five or six Justices who don't believe it means what it says, and three who do. Luckily this nomination will replace one of the disbelievers. Will the replacement protect the Constitution or be an accomplice in its destruction?

Nonsense! You are saying that he can't even make a comment defending his staff and promoting a more dignified process and be judged as having been appropriate.

Bush's idea of a "dignified process" is to sedate opposition. He has applied the same disingenuous blather to the illegal immigration problem. In this he is no different from those on the Left who use the cry of "moderation!" to mask their own immoderate agendas.

Bush is entitled to defend Gonzales. He is not entitled to tell the rest of us to lay off the criticisms because he'd rather not be reminded that Gonzales has a shaky record on certain matters pertaining to civil liberties.

By the way I voted for Bush. Twice. He's still better than the alternatives. And that, fellow THR loyalist, is really, really sad.

I had to check the url, from the Bush-Hate/republican bashing on this thread, I thought I had wondered into DU.

"DU?" You thought you had wandered into depleted uranium? Seriously, the "D" obviously means dem, but what on earth is the "U" supposed to mean?

Anyway, I fear not to bring out the "t" word with Bush. He is a tyrant unless the english language has been changed while we slept.

Tyrants exceed their authority, tyrants abuse the rights of individuals, tyrants want ALL power and ALWAYS claim they won't/haven't abused it (the constant claim regarding the "patriot" act), tyrants are pathological liars (denying his "guest worker" program is amnesty), tyrants support UNelected and UNaccountable powers (like the UN, and regional government like NAFTA/FTAA/CAFTA ETC), and tyrants L-O-V-E and I mean LOVE secrecy. Remember when Bush blacked out the documents from the FOIA request about CLINTON?! That was proof they both bat for the same basic team. Is anyone else vomiting at how daddy Bush and Bubba are best friends now? :barf: Again, more proof they play for the same basic team. We the people have been royally HAD!

Seen enough he has done
1-Patroit Act
2-Campaign "Reform" (So much for free speech)
3-Call the Minutemen Vigilanties
4-Push for his guest worker crap (amnesty for illegals)
5-Pushing for CAFTA ( If you like NAFTA you'll love this) AMEN!

I voted Libertarian for pres but I prayed with all my might that Kerry would win, and to this day, I'm STILL trying to get it through the heads of some friends as to why. I'm smart enough to realize that with the type of control system that runs D.C., we can only SLOW the loss of liberty, and the ONLY way to do that is with DIVIDED GOVERNMENT. I wanted those fabian socialists in congress, who USED to pretend to be for small government, to have a Clintonesque president to fight against to force them to stand for things like the balanced budget amendment again. I wanted there to be opposing debate and God willing GRIDLOCK in that evil city. Now, we don't even really have a separation of powers anymore. It's awful.

We all know full well that either Clinton or Kerry or Gore would have nominated someone JUST LIKE Al Gonzales to be A.G. In fact, I can't understand why Gonzo even calls himself a republican, probably because the players in D.C. like him know damn well that the party label means ZERO. They know that both parties are controlled by the same system, and serve the same basic goals of big government, globalism, and federal tyranny.

I think that is a good question.

Ron Paul states the following:

It is folly to believe we will regain lost freedoms if only the right individuals are appointed to the Supreme Court. Republican presidents, including conservative icon Ronald Reagan, have appointed some of our very worst Supreme Court Justices. In today’s political context, it frankly matters very little whom President Bush appoints to replace Justice O’Connor. Even the most promising jurist can change radically over the course of a lifetime appointment. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men, and the fixation on individuals as saviors of our freedoms is misplaced. America will regain lost freedoms only when her citizens wake up and reclaim a national sense of self-reliance, individualism, and limited government. A handful of judges cannot save a nation from itself.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html

A nation of laws, not men.

What an amazing idea.

Bush's idea of a "dignified process" is to sedate opposition. - longeyes

I can understand cynicism, but we don't know this. Why can't his words mean simply what they say? Beyond that, he didn't invent the concept of the bully pulpit. You should keep in mind that many in this country are reportedly appalled at the recent behavior in Congress. Would it not be a presidential role to encourage "toning it done", promoting some dignity in Congress and then more confidence by the public?

There are a number of reasons to oppose Gonzales.
In his younger years, he was closely associated with La Raza (The Race) and Mecha, a radical Mexican rights group whose motto is "For those of the Race, everything. For those not of the Race, nothing".
Who wants a racist of any color as a member of the SCOTUS?
Biker