| Author |
Message |
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
 Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:43 pm Bush hints 'diversity' will guide next court pick. |
|
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3371048
| Quote: |
Bush hints 'diversity' will guide next pick
His choice could make history with a Hispanic justice
By PATTY REINERT
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - As the U.S. Senate began debating the chief justice nomination of John Roberts, President Bush hinted Monday that his next nominee to the Supreme Court likely will be a woman or minority.
"I will pick a person who can do the job," Bush said of his pending nomination to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "But I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country."
A vote on Roberts' confirmation is tentatively scheduled for Thursday. It is virtually a done deal, with two-thirds of the Republican-controlled Senate already committed to supporting him.
Bush is expected to name his next nominee shortly after Roberts is confirmed, and Senate leaders have indicated the next choice could be seated before Thanksgiving.
O'Connor will remain until her successor is confirmed, so the Supreme Court will begin its new term Monday with a full bench of nine justices.
Even before the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-5 last Thursday to send Roberts' nomination to the full Senate, lawmakers were moving on to the next confirmation hearings, which are widely expected to be a bigger fight.
Roberts' confirmation would essentially replace a conservative, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, with another conservative. But the next nominee will succeed O'Connor, a moderate appointee of Ronald Reagan who has been one of the high court's most influential swing voters, often providing the pivotal vote in 5-4 cases on abortion, affirmative action, capital punishment and discrimination.
Choosing a justice in the mold of conservative Justices Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, as Bush has repeatedly vowed to do, would likely move the court dramatically to the right, where it could remain for decades.
Bush may make history by nominating the court's first Hispanic justice. Or he could maintain the court's makeup of seven men and two women.
First lady weighs in
Over cheese omelets at the White House last week, Senate leaders offered the president about a dozen names, and he made clear that he could face a filibuster if he chooses a controversial ultraconservative.
First lady Laura Bush also weighed in, as she did before Roberts was nominated. Again, she expressed her wish that her husband choose a woman.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the other woman on the court; other than Justice Clarence Thomas, who is black, the rest of the justices are white.
"I know there are qualified women that are in the pool of people who are being looked at," Laura Bush told the Associated Press.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, one of 14 women in the 100-seat Senate, shares the first lady's hope.
"I do want the next nominee to be a woman," Hutchison told the Houston Chronicle. She added that she would also like to see a Hispanic on the high court bench, but that "all things being equal," she would still favor a woman.
Bush has kept his list of potential nominees mostly to himself. But the names that have been floating among Washington insiders include several women, a few Hispanics and at least one who is both.
Conservative Republicans close to the selection process said former Houstonian Priscilla Owen, seated on the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans in June after controversy about her judicial record, is a top contender, as is her colleague on the court, Houstonian Edith Jones.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan, also thought to be under consideration, is a Latina.
The list of Latinos includes several Texans � Bush friend and U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales of Houston, and federal appeals judges Emilio Garza and Edward Prado, both of San Antonio. Miguel Estrada, a lawyer nominated but not confirmed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, also has conservatives' support.
Dems want 'consultation'
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, supported Roberts. But he warned that Democrats are extremely disappointed in what he called the Bush team's lack of cooperation with the Senate, and that they expect better next time around.
"Roberts' nomination was the result of surprise, not consultation," he said, highlighting the fact that Bush could pick someone who has been left out of the speculation.
Leahy said in Monday's debate that with the controversial war in Iraq and hundreds of thousands of Americans displaced by hurricanes, it's more important than ever for the president to choose as the next nominee someone who won't create deep political divisions.
"The Supreme Court belongs to every American," he said.
Republican senators, along with some Democrats, praised Roberts' legal experience and knowledge. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee called him "the brightest of the bright."
Democrats against Roberts' nomination acknowledged his credentials and said that regardless, they have too many unanswered questions about his commitment to equal rights for minorities and women. |
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:45 pm |
|
I hoping it's Miguel Estrada. I can think of noone better qualified for the job. (Maybe Andrew Napalitano, but that's a pipe dream)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:54 pm |
|
Uh, I wouldn't want Judge Napolitano to be picked. 
However, I would like Miguel or Clements, or perhaps Gonzalez.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:56 pm |
|
Idologically, I don't think I know of anyone as close to my views as Napalitano. I guarantee he'd be a very fair, very non-biased judge. He's by far my favorite Fox News commentator, except for Megyn Kendall, who I like for entirely different reasons. 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:16 am |
|
lol. Sometimes I like his views; sometimes I don't. Yes, I think he'd be a fair judge, but I think he's too liberal.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:36 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | lol. Sometimes I like his views; sometimes I don't. Yes, I think he'd be a fair judge, but I think he's too liberal. |
Too... Liberal... First time i've heard that about him.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:04 am |
|
A potential Supreme Court nominee should be chosen for their knowledge of the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions, their loyalty to the ideals of the founders, and above all their ability to judge Court issues fairly and impartially. Not "based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" (see Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:19 pm |
|
^Exactly. Sorry for the one word post, but I think webtaz is 100% right.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Wed Sep 28, 2005 3:32 pm |
|
Its funny how when liberals moan that a judge is too conservative were attacking saying ideology shouldn't be a judge for a nominee. Yet now the conservatives are saying someone is to liberal?  A bit hypocritical if you ask me.
Yeah Yeah Yeah you think conservatives follow the constitution more closely, that's your OPINION. Liberal think the opposite.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:11 pm |
|
Andrew Napoliano is not quite a legitimate pick, I threw him in as kind of a joke. As for who follows the constitution more closely, it's not really opinion. Conservatives are texturalists, Liberals are activists. This is a fact even to most liberals. The difference is whether or not you believe the Constitution was written to be maleable or rigid.
And he is by no means Liberal, I don't see where RM gets that...LOL
Anyways, back on topic, I think it IS important to remember that we have a representative government. As latinos quickly become, and will so be the, most populace minority in out country, I think it's time they get a seat in the court. The "black seat" has been preserved in the court for decades, I think it's time a "latino seat" be created, as they are becoming a larger and larger part of the nation.
As for who is qualified, Miguel Estrada is about the most qualified person I can think of, and I was actually hoping he would be nominated, before I even heard the name John Roberts.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Thu Sep 29, 2005 6:55 am |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | Conservatives are texturalists, Liberals are activists. This is a fact even to most liberals. The difference is whether or not you believe the Constitution was written to be maleable or rigid.
|
The Constitution itself contains the means to change it, so obviously it is a maleable document. But the set of ideals that it was based on are just as obviously rigid. The Constitution was meant to be a living document that would change over time to maintain a government which remained true to those ideals.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu Sep 29, 2005 12:27 pm |
|
Through amendment, not political activism.
Lawmakers make the changes, not justices.
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:15 pm |
|
Congress ammends the Constitution.
The Supreme Court clarifies it. Example: "Due process"
The reason the Constitution has lasted so long is because we have been able to modify its vaugeness to fit the times.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:34 pm |
|
Clarifying and redefining are totally different. Actually, the only job the court should have is to interpret what the constitution means if there's a debate of any part.
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:42 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | Clarifying and redefining are totally different. Actually, the only job the court should have is to interpret what the constitution means if there's a debate of any part. |
That's basically what I said. I was summerizing the roles of the Supreme Court and Congress.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
