Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Bush Selects Hispanic Woman for Supreme Court!

What?!

You mean he didn't???!!!!

So what about all the talk of a Hispanic, female, Zoroastrian goatherd from Uttar Pradesh as the only logical choice to fill the seat of the esteemed and august Sandra Day O'Connor?

Riiiiight.

It's just like the VP selection process strategy, where *mentioning* a person or a set of characteristics is designed to give the public impression that those people/characteristics are on your short list because you really really really do care about them. All the while, you have zero intention of selecting them, but the public floating of their names gives you the cover of having "considered" them.

So now Bush looks so au courant for having "considered" minorities for the Supreme Court, without having to actually appoint one.

Not that I care in this case, to be honest, since whichever race, ethnicity or gender the nominee is, s/he would have been a far rightie regardless. No thanks.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think you said it yourself when you say it doesn't really matter race, gender, national origin, or whatnot - it would be a rightie. Would you expect anything less? Clinton nominated liberals. Bush Sr. nominated a liberal (he was duped and thought his nod was a conservative). Reagan nominated both (i.e. SDO)!

The way I see it, it really doesn't matter who Bush would have nominated - the liberal left, the Democrat Senators, and NARAL would have bitched just like they are now. If you nominate a white male, liberals bitch that a minority wasn't selected. If you nominate a minority, liberals bitch about the minority not being a liberal (see Justice Clarence Thomas's nomination for proof of that - heck, they called him a racist and an Uncle Tom). As is usually the case, unless the nomination is a Ruth Bader Ginsburg clone, the liberals will complain.

Personally, it would be nice to see a nominee who IS CLEARLY QUALIFIED TO SIT ON THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND make it through the system in time for the Court to be completely filled by the Oct 3rd start date. Am I dreaming? Or are we looking at the next Bork?

Raine said...

I'm going to play the bitchy liberal here and complain about Bush nominating a far-righty. Honestly, I think it's fair that I get to complain, because it's not like it's *just* a far-rightie sitting there. It's one of the Administration's lapdogs, bred and groomed for the position, and he is expected to take the Administration's stance on everything. Is this someone you want sitting on the highest court in the land?

Rather than choosing who's qualified, the Republicans have gotten into choosing who's loyal, and who's dependant.

Vigilante said...

I'm going to have to say, Raine, "What did you expect?"

I don't think our team needs to make this appointment 'an exceptional case or circumstance". Given our lack of numbers in the Senate, fighting this with a filibuster would be a poor deployment of our limited political capital.

I might change my mind if Focus on the Family, or the Family Research Council come out enthusiastically for Roberts.

But I don't think they will.

In the meantime, we have tastier fish to fry.

(Well, actually since they're bottom-feeders, they may not turn out too tasty.)

Miko said...

Agreed sozadee. Unless there are serious skeletons in the closet, this isn't worth a fight.

And anonymous, people who are liberal are not 'bitching', they're exhibiting a justifiable concern that far-right administrations are likely to pack the court with radical right-wing extremists who wish to curtail our freedoms. Any candidates for the highest court deserve a very close look. It's patriotic to question, and if the judge really is both fair and qualified, then there is nothing to fear in a close look, is there?

Anyway -- if you hadn't recalled, it was Anita Hill, and not racial epithets, that made Thomas' nomination so darn ugly. And I bet I'm not the only one around the Haggis that believed Anita. And still does.

Anonymous said...

Well thought out arguments. Sozadee, you will get your chance today at about 10:00 EST to hear what James Dobson of Focus on the Family thinks about Roberts. I guess you will have to make your decision there.

Raine, make sure you go back and read what the NOW and NARAL had to say about Justice David Souter during his nomination process. They called him a Bush lapdog, and vilified him to no end,, saying that he would strip women of their right to choose and inprison immigrants. If you still see him as a Bush lapdog today, then you obviously have not been paying attention to the SCOTUS very much. No one knows how Roberts is going to be voting 10 years from now, so hold your reservations until then. And, to say that Roberts is unqualified is clearly a sign of your uninformed bias - even liberal Senate Democrats don't question his ABILITY on the bench - they just question his "rightyness"

Miko, who invited Anita Hill to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Thomas? IIRC, it was Kennedy, then chairman of the committee. At the request of NOW. She had no business being there other than to vilify Thomas and say that he was unqualified because he was a black conservative. As well as making false accusations of sexual misconduct - must have been a "right wing conspiracy" - oh, sorry, wrong quote.

Personally, I hope Bush's nomination to replace Renquist is none other than Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owens. Won't that put the liberals panties in a bunch?

I only wish those who think that Bush is trying to pack the court with lapdogs would actually do their homework and research these people they are vilifying. I guess it all comes down to "well, they were nominated by a Republican, so we must therefore hate them and call them unqualified."

Vigilante said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Vigilante said...

Unk, It's because of sentiments like this:
Personally, I hope Bush's nomination to replace Renquist is none other than Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owens. Won't that put the liberals panties in a bunch?

That I fear Bush will ultimately revert to form and nominate according to loyalty as opposed to merit - as was the case in the Roberts nomination. If the Shrub has to listen to those of your persuasion, we are due for some "exceptional circumstances"

For that reason I have expressed (elsewhere) the hope that Bush will ultimately elevate Roberts to Chief Justice. He seems to have the credentials to provide a suitable anchor for SCOTUS for decades to come.

Edgar Newt said...

Sozadee, Since the Abe Fortas debacle, 2nd term presidents have been extremely reluctant to elevate a sitting justice to Chief Justice. Requiring a sitting justice to go through a second confirmation hearing (where his/her paper trail has gotten longer and longer) is a bad idea in my opinion.

Roberts will make it to the Court. I would love it if Bush tried to elevate him, once there. Personally, I hope Bush selects a latino to be CJ. I think I know somebody that is relatively conservative, that could survive a confirmation hearing (with some bruising concerning a certain memo or two) and that would have the potential of at least not falling on the extremes of the ideological spectrum. I know, I know. It's a pipe dream.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Sozadee - try something. Go do a little research and read the decisions that Priscilla Owens or Janice Rogers Brown have handed down during their tenures on the bench.

If, after having done that, you come to the conclusion that your "...fear Bush will ultimately revert to form and nominate according to loyalty as opposed to merit - as was the case in the Roberts nomination" has come to fruition, then all I can really do is say that you no longer have any cognitive ability to think like a rational being.

Regardless, I am done arguing here. I will have to decide not to return. Sorry E, I am sure you will miss me. I think it may be time to get myself my own blog so that I can stop clogging E's site with my bantering.

Edgar Newt said...

Dear Unknown/Anonymous:

Now I have been known to throw some tantrums in my day, but really.... If you don't like what Sozadee has to say, then don't read his comments to E's posts. I usually ignore Sozadee's comments anyway. But to remove yourself from the site -- and lose out on E's postings (only some of which are political in nature) -- seems to be a bit silly to say the least. But if you want to punish yourself for your political leanings...(I kid, I kid ;) )

However, if that is your desire so be it. It really sounds like it is "your way or the highway." If that is indeed your perspective, then by all means, please go start your own blog. As an aside, I understand that blogspot and most of its competitors allow you, as the author of the blog, to restrict completely the ability of anybody to post comments or responses to your blog...you might want to look into that.

Seriously, I think reasonable people can differ on political appointments -- especially lifetime appointments. I consider myself reasonable -- having worked in political campaigns on both the Republican and Democratic sides -- and I would really have serious, serious reservations if Bush nominated either Priscilla Owens or Janice Rogers Brown. My reservations concern each of them and their "paper trail" or demonstrated approach to jurisprudence, but those concerns are compounded by how their addition to the Court would swing it even further to right.

When I first started following the Court (almost twenty years ago), O'Connor and Kennedy were considered squarely on the conservative side of the Court. I thought that Court was reasonably balanced -- liberals won some, conservatives won some. The Court adhered to past precedent and addressed unanswered questions when the became ripe. Life, relatively speaking, was good on the Court.

The fact that O'Connor is now called the "Wicked Witch of the West" by some conservatives and Kennedy is lambasted on a daily basis by other conservatives indicates to me that the balance is longer teetering (sp?) near equilibrium, but has fallen well to the right.

For me, I want the USSC to be comprised of people that are smarter than myself, more humble than myself, and who revere the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our imperfect system of government at least as strongly as I do. But that's just me....

E said...

Dear Unknown/Anonymous/ (You're really Dick Cheney, aren't you?) ;)

Although I have moments of enjoying the SS Haggis I'm-So-Right Circle Jerk, I actually completely enjoy reading comments where people think I'm flat out wrong. And don't worry about endless "bantering." My friends and family have indulged me for so long that it's only right that I return the favor to others...

Anonymous, Sozadee and Edgar, loving your insights, dahlings. You're schoolin' me. Keep 'em comin'.

E

E said...

Dear Unknown/Anonymous/ (You're really Dick Cheney, aren't you?) ;)

Although I have moments of enjoying the SS Haggis I'm-So-Right Circle Jerk, I actually completely enjoy reading comments where people think I'm flat out wrong. And don't worry about endless "bantering." My friends and family have indulged me for so long that it's only right that I return the favor to others...

Anonymous, Sozadee and Edgar, loving your insights, dahlings. You're schoolin' me. Keep 'em comin'.

E

E said...

Dear Unknown/Anonymous/ (You're really Dick Cheney, aren't you?) ;)

Although I have moments of enjoying the SS Haggis I'm-So-Right Circle Jerk, I actually completely enjoy reading comments where people think I'm flat out wrong. And don't worry about endless "bantering." My friends and family have indulged me for so long that it's only right that I return the favor to others...

Anonymous, Raine, Miko, Sozadee and Edgar, loving your insights, dahlings. You're schoolin' me. Keep 'em comin'.

E

E said...

Pop Quiz:

My comments are so good I post them three times.

OR

I'm a boob.

Vigilante said...

If it's up for a vote, E, I'll go for "Boob".

I'll always vote for Boob, up-or-down, whenever, however, whoever, forever.

Vigilante said...

Edgar, I see your point on Abe Fortas, but I'll raise you this point: I don't think Roberts is going to have a chance to post much of a track record in SCOTUS. I think Rehnquist is got a fork in him and he'll be retired within a year. I don't like Roberts' conservatism, of course. But, as McCain says, 'Elections have consequences". At least Roberts appears to be a substantial legal scholar. But, then, I don't know who you have in mind.

Nevertheless, in a poker game, I'd take yo' money with a smile, betting on Gonzalez replacing Rehnquist and Roberts being elevated.

Vigilante said...

Unk, when you say,
I am done arguing here. I will have to decide not to return. ... I am sure you will miss me. I think it may be time to get myself my own blog so that I can stop clogging E's site with my bantering.
I'm trying to resist saying
"Don't let the door hit'cha where the Good Lord split'cha".
(Oops, I guess I said it!)

But I really wanted to ask you to leave us the link to your own blog, even if you don't leave us your nick. I'm for sure wanting to come visit and read all about your research on Priscilla Owens or Janice Rogers Brown and such which you will be posting there.

Miko said...

Oh, I don't know if I need a link to unkie's blog. There are so, so many places to get right-wing boilerplate - why not go right to the source and cut out the middleman?

Vigilante said...

Well, you have a very good point, Miko.

I guess I just wanted to reachout to Unkie & Anony. (Part of my out-reach program.)

Maybe he/she/they will relent and return to us, who really - after all - understand them.

Lord Bowler said...

Unky here...and yes, THE Unky. It was actually E's plea that I return, and the fact that Sozadee asked me to follow up with my blog webaddy.

I think that my blog URL will show up once this posts, but if not, I will follow up.

As for the blog, let it be known that I have only posted once. Be that as it may, it might give you a little insight into my thought processes, including the mere mention that it was this sight (and the responses) that caused me to create my own blog.

Of course, I will be honest - I always am when it comes to politics. I may also bother a few people, but sometimes one side of an argument can do that. I will most certainly have an opportunity to just spout off on a few things, and if others want to post comments, then so be it.

Hope to see you all there!

- Chris

Lord Bowler said...

E, I would like to get your permission before I post my blog address. No point in using your webspace for my own personal gain. Let me know if that is cool - Lord Bowler, aka Chris, aka Unky aka Unknown/Anonymous

E said...

Have at it!

Lord Bowler said...

Well, there you have it! Permission from the one and only E. Thanks.

www.tangentialthinking.blogspot.com

Messenger said...

Well, you really stand - to excess - on protocol, Lord....IMHO.