Jump to content


Bush Makes Supreme Court Choice?


Passion
 Share

Recommended Posts

President Bush said Tuesday he has considered candidates from all walks of life for the Supreme Court but refused to tip his hand on whom he will name, when he will do it or whether he wants to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with a woman.

 

Bush, at a news conference, would not even say if he had finished interviewing candidates. Though Washington was abuzz with speculation Tuesday about Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans, the president ignored a question about what he thought of her.

 

"I guess the best way to say it is, I'll let you know when I'm ready to tell you who it is," the president said. He jokingly acknowledged that he was trying to dodge the question.

 

"I'm comfortable with where we are in the process," the president said. He said he has considered a variety of people from different walks of life, some of whom he knew before and some he had never met.

 

"I do have an obligation to think about people from different backgrounds that have shared the same philosophy, people who will not legislate from the bench," Bush said. He spoke at a press conference with visiting Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

 

At Clement's office in New Orleans, a man who identified himself as a law clerk said the judge was not available. "That's what I've been instructed to say," he told a caller who asked if she were in Washington.

 

Interest groups say another female candidate thought to be under consideration was Edith Hollan Jones, who also serves on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

 

There was no word from the White House on when Bush would disclose his selection, but officials familiar with the process said it appeared an announcement was imminent. White House press secretary Scott McClellan would say only: "The president is closer today than he was yesterday on naming a nominee."

 

Asked whether he expected an announcement, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Tuesday, "I don't know, but I don't think so."

 

In a sign that Bush was getting close to naming his pick, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was called to the White House on Monday. Specter, who would lead the confirmation process in the Senate, has said he hopes Bush selects a moderate jurist.

 

In anticipation of a selection, officials said the White House had contacted selected Republican senators they hoped would serve as advocates for the nominee in media interviews in the initial time following an announcement. Democrats scoured the rulings and writings of leading contenders, including Clement, a 57-year-old jurist who was confirmed on a 99-0 vote by the Senate when she was elevated to the appeals court in 2001.

 

White House officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the process, said Bush's timetable appears to have been accelerated and that a choice could come as early as Tuesday. They said Clement is a leading candidate, but cautioned that the president had not made a final decision and that there were other prospects still in the mix.

 

Any announcement would turn the spotlight in Washington toward the Supreme Court vacancy and away from news about Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and the ongoing federal probe into who leaked the name of a CIA officer.

 

White House officials have refused to discuss the names of top prospects being considered as a replacement for the departing O'Connor, who was the first woman appointed to the court.

 

Other possible candidates are conservative federal appellate court judges Samuel Alito, J. Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, John Roberts Jr., Emilio Garza and J. Harvie Wilkinson III; and former deputy attorney general Admin Thompson.

 

Other names thought to be under consideration were: Maura Corrigan, a judge on the Michigan Supreme Court; Cecilia M. Altonaga, a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Florida; Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard Law School professor; Karen Williams from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Janice Rogers Brown, recently confirmed by the Senate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; and Priscilla Owen, who was just confirmed for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1900138_pf.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It's blatantly obvious that he's rushing his decision of a Supreme Court nominee to turn the public's eye away from the Rove scandal.

 

I would like to see a moderate woman take the empty seat, as opposed to someone like Alberto "The Geneva Convention is Irrelevant" Gonzales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's blatantly obvious that he's rushing his decision of a Supreme Court nominee to turn the public's eye away from the Rove scandal.

 

I would like to see a moderate woman take the empty seat, as opposed to someone like Alberto "The Geneva Convention is Irrelevant" Gonzales.

864859[/snapback]

So you think terrorists fall under the Geneva Convention? Something written over 50 years is still relevant today. Oh Well.

 

Im glad to see Bush considering a woman. Bush has been the President of minorities. Giving more jobs to minorities than any other President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's blatantly obvious that he's rushing his decision of a Supreme Court nominee to turn the public's eye away from the Rove scandal.

 

I would like to see a moderate woman take the empty seat, as opposed to someone like Alberto "The Geneva Convention is Irrelevant" Gonzales.

864859[/snapback]

Ddi you even read the article? He wouldnt even say if he had finished interviewing all candidates...he was asked in a press conference...

 

This article is speculation and tries to set up a timetable on when the nomination could happen. Please read before spouting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's blatantly obvious that he's rushing his decision of a Supreme Court nominee to turn the public's eye away from the Rove scandal.

 

I would like to see a moderate woman take the empty seat, as opposed to someone like Alberto "The Geneva Convention is Irrelevant" Gonzales.

864859[/snapback]

So you think terrorists fall under the Geneva Convention? Something written over 50 years is still relevant today. Oh Well.

 

Im glad to see Bush considering a woman. Bush has been the President of minorities. Giving more jobs to minorities than any other President.

864904[/snapback]

And yet, people still say that Republicans are racist against blacks. I think people play too many dirty political games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your information is actually a little old. Before I posted, I noticed that Bush announced that he will nominate someone for the Supreme Court tonight at 9 PM EST. Therefore, my post isn't in error.

864911[/snapback]

The link was updated at 1:53...Im sorry your holyness

 

And so he is making the nomination tonight....you could spin Bush making the nomination today, a week from now, or two months from now any way youd like against him, it doesnt matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He may employ more minorities than other presidents before him, but he has skipped meeting with the NAACP for the last 5 years, while trying to get black support for the Republican party.

 

In addition, his policies have been hurtful to lower-class citizens, and have mostly benefited the business community and the rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your information is actually a little old. Before I posted, I noticed that Bush announced that he will nominate someone for the Supreme Court tonight at 9 PM EST. Therefore, my post isn't in error.

864911[/snapback]

The link was updated at 1:53...Im sorry your holyness

 

And so he is making the nomination tonight....you could spin Bush making the nomination today, a week from now, or two months from now any way youd like against him, it doesnt matter.

864926[/snapback]

Before this Rove thing exploded, the concensus was that Bush would announce his nominee in October. I wouldn't have had a problem with that, but now it has to be blatantly obvious to anyone that he is attempting to shove the Rove story under the rug, hoping it will go away. Why else would he move up the nomination by 3-4 months?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He may employ more minorities than other presidents before him, but he has skipped meeting with the NAACP for the last 5 years, while trying to get black support for the Republican party.

 

In addition, his policies have been hurtful to lower-class citizens, and have mostly benefited the business community and the rich.

864933[/snapback]

:boo-woo Yeah because when the economy is doing good it only benefits the rich. When unemployment is at its best rates in 80 years it only helps the rich. When there are across the board tax cuts it ONLY helps the rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like I say many times to people who think only the super rich benefit from Republicans... If you think that the big corporations are getting too rich, arrange large boycotts of their products and watch the trickle-down effect do its thing on the lower-class Americans. Businesses need money to create jobs. And if people want to complain about the really rich people and big business, then boycott them. There are enough Democrats and liberals in general in this country to arrange large boycotts of these big businesses that feed off the poor. I don't understand why it doesn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tax cuts have contributed to a large deficit, the largest in history.

 

Any person with a good knowledge of the economy will tell you that it's not in bad shape, but it's not good either.

 

I really doubt your claim that unemployment is at its lowest level in 80 years. I haven't read anything to substanciate that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Moneyball

He may employ more minorities than other presidents before him, but he has skipped meeting with the NAACP for the last 5 years, while trying to get black support for the Republican party.

 

In addition, his policies have been hurtful to lower-class citizens, and have mostly benefited the business community and the rich.

864933[/snapback]

 

He might as well go to a DNC meeting. :plain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tax cuts have contributed to a large deficit, the largest in history.

 

Any person with a good knowledge of the economy will tell you that it's not in bad shape, but it's not good either.

 

I really doubt your claim that unemployment is at its lowest level in 80 years. I haven't read anything to substanciate that.

865152[/snapback]

 

He employs more minorities than any president in the history of this country, who gives a damn if he doesn't go to NAACP meetings, an organization that was heavily against him in 2000 and 2004? This is no different than him skipping meetings with the ACLU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish some of the Presidents these days actually had the backbone to take questions from a hostile audience for once.

 

In England, candidates don't have the luxury of hand-picking their audience, and they are forced to face questions from people who may dislike them greatly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish some of the Presidents these days actually had the backbone to take questions from a hostile audience for once.

 

In England, candidates don't have the luxury of hand-picking their audience, and they are forced to face questions from people who may dislike them greatly.

865465[/snapback]

Yeah. If anyone evere gets a chance to watch English government in action on C-SPAN(?) it's certainly a treat. They don't let politicos hide. They have to take s*** and think on their feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish some of the Presidents these days actually had the backbone to take questions from a hostile audience for once.

 

In England, candidates don't have the luxury of hand-picking their audience, and they are forced to face questions from people who may dislike them greatly.

865465[/snapback]

Yeah. If anyone evere gets a chance to watch English government in action on C-SPAN(?) it's certainly a treat. They don't let politicos hide. They have to take s*** and think on their feet.

867187[/snapback]

 

Judging from your signature I probably dont agree with much your politics but i do agree 100% with your post , our system would be much better if actual questions that mean something to everyday people were asked instead of predictable questions and generic scripted answers that dont even usually answer the question ....maybe then we could do alot better than someone who basically was selected to be the republican nominee ( bush in 2000) without out actually earning it (or deserving it i might add), or someone who attempted to portray himself as something he was not and couldnt explain nor did he seek to talk about anything he did in the previous 30 years of his political life{kerry).........Every four years usually the thought these cant be the two best people America has to offer runs through my head than I hold my nose and go into the voting booth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like I say many times to people who think only the super rich benefit from Republicans... If you think that the big corporations are getting too rich, arrange large boycotts of their products and watch the trickle-down effect do its thing on the lower-class Americans.? Businesses need money to create jobs.? And if people want to complain about the really rich people and big business, then boycott them.? There are enough Democrats and liberals in general in this country to arrange large boycotts of these big businesses that feed off the poor.? I don't understand why it doesn't happen.

865014[/snapback]

 

 

It doesnt happen because big businesses have brought the Democratic party just as much as they have brought the Republican Party , Enron , World com etc all have donated huge amounts of money to both parties ....both parties have been compromised by big business........As to liberals I disagree there arent very many liberals in America in terms of economics . The only Democratic President elected in the last 25 years was fiscally a moderate to conservative for the successful parts of his two terms only in the beginning were his policies led to Republicans taking the house and senate and the last year in office did Clinton move away from the middle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish some of the Presidents these days actually had the backbone to take questions from a hostile audience for once.

 

In England, candidates don't have the luxury of hand-picking their audience, and they are forced to face questions from people who may dislike them greatly.

865465[/snapback]

Yeah. If anyone evere gets a chance to watch English government in action on C-SPAN(?) it's certainly a treat. They don't let politicos hide. They have to take s*** and think on their feet.

867187[/snapback]

 

Judging from your signature I probably dont agree with much your politics but i do agree 100% with your post , our system would be much better if actual questions that mean something to everyday people were asked instead of predictable questions and generic scripted answers that dont even usually answer the question ....maybe then we could do alot better than someone who basically was selected to be the republican nominee ( bush in 2000) without out actually earning it (or deserving it i might add), or someone who attempted to portray himself as something he was not and couldnt explain nor did he seek to talk about anything he did in the previous 30 years of his political life{kerry).........Every four years usually the thought these cant be the two best people America has to offer runs through my head than I hold my nose and go into the voting booth

867223[/snapback]

Agree with everything said there. The outcome of having a Kerry/Bush type president (I obviously think less of Bush as an intellect) is that the strings are pulled from those surrounding the person. When you get someone like a Tony Blair grilled on the fire almost everyday a hardened, intelligent person emerges. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the babying of our politicos is sickening. Glad-handed all the way to the White House. The less questioning we become as a people (represented by the press/government relationship) of our elected representatives, the greater opportunity they have to manipulate and corrupt our institutions. I don't care if you're a Dem or Repub.

 

Don't take the sig quotes too seriously. I'm a more complex political being than Accord or Passion will have you believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish some of the Presidents these days actually had the backbone to take questions from a hostile audience for once.

 

In England, candidates don't have the luxury of hand-picking their audience, and they are forced to face questions from people who may dislike them greatly.

865465[/snapback]

Yeah. If anyone evere gets a chance to watch English government in action on C-SPAN(?) it's certainly a treat. They don't let politicos hide. They have to take s*** and think on their feet.

867187[/snapback]

Watching the English government is awesome. The best was the segment on the Daily Show. Being able to call your leader a "liar" and "incompedent" directly to his face is truly what democracy is about. :thumbup

 

The House of Commons is hilarous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish some of the Presidents these days actually had the backbone to take questions from a hostile audience for once.

 

In England, candidates don't have the luxury of hand-picking their audience, and they are forced to face questions from people who may dislike them greatly.

865465[/snapback]

Yeah. If anyone evere gets a chance to watch English government in action on C-SPAN(?) it's certainly a treat. They don't let politicos hide. They have to take s*** and think on their feet.

867187[/snapback]

Watching the English government is awesome. The best was the segment on the Daily Show. Being able to call your leader a "liar" and "incompedent" directly to his face is truly what democracy is about. :thumbup

 

The House of Commons is hilarous.

869456[/snapback]

yassuh. :mischief :thumbup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...