Ultima Thule

In ancient times the northernmost region of the habitable world - hence, any distant, unknown or mysterious land.

Monday, June 27, 2005

No, not Gonzales!

By Aussiegirl

Bob Novak has the rundown on potential Supreme Court nominees and the opposition in conservative circles against the rumored nomination of Alberto Gonzales. Looks like white men over 60 need not apply -- the president is looking for a politically correct nominee of the right sex or racial background.

George Bush now seems to have morphed into the original affirmative action president. I've got nothing against nominees of whatever persuasion as long as they are the most qualified person around. But it's beginning to look like the administration is not even considering candidates who are not politically correct in terms of race or sex.

Why, for instance, should the replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor be necessarily a woman?

And what's wrong with being over 60? Today a 60 year old is still a young person. Personally, the older these justices the better, as far as I'm concerned -- that will keep them from serving on the court for way too long as is presently the case. All we need is a bad justice on there for 30 years or more. At least nominating an old person puts SOME sort of a term limit on their tenures.

It was not merely a leak from the normally leak-proof Bush White House. For more than a week, a veritable torrent has tipped Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as President Bush's first nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. It has sent the conservative movement into spasms of fear and loathing.

For example, why the torrent of Gonzales leaks from a White House extraordinarily adept at holding back the president's intended nominations? It looks like a trial balloon, but there are also suspicions that Gonzales's name has been floated by critics in order to shoot him down.

. . . Conservatives fear Gonzales will be another in a long line of Supreme Court justices who have proved more liberal than the president who appointed them expected -- John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter. That is a view widely held inside the White House, but not by the occupant who counts most.

George W. Bush loves Al Gonzales and would like his former chief counsel to head a "Gonzales Court."

White men over 60 need not apply -- move to the back of the bus -- who imagined that the Bush administration would be the biggest proponent of affirmative action?

The White House has sent word that two favorites of the conservative movement -- Appellate Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson (4th Circuit, Richmond, Va.) and former Solicitor General Theodore Olson -- are ineligible because they are over 60. The two current favorites are Appellate Judges John Roberts (D.C. Circuit) and J. Michael Luttig (4th Circuit).

But sources report Rehnquist is not ready to resign and that O'Connor is readying the way for a return to Arizona with her invalid husband. While Bush would consider replacing one of the court's two women with its first Hispanic justice, neither Roberts nor Luttig for O'Connor would be politically correct.

Oh heavens, let's not be politically incorrect! You have to have a minority or a woman -- this is the Republican party?

Accordingly, White House judge-hunters are looking for a woman. They have interviewed Appellate Judge Edith Brown Clement (5th Circuit, New Orleans), a conservative who flies under the radar. She was confirmed as a Louisiana district judge in 1991, seven weeks after her nomination by the first President Bush, and was confirmed as an appellate judge in 2001, two and a half months after George W. Bush named her.


At 12:04 PM, Blogger BonnieBlueFlag said...


I am writing this after the rulings have come down, and are now being explained to "We the Dummies."

Two separate rulings, one for Kentucky, and one for Texas, what did they do, "Flip a Coin?"

I'm so sick at heart by what this court has been doing, and these rulings haven't settled anything one way or the other. There will now be more court cases on the same subject matter. Does the court plan to rule on each one personally? Or, will they refuse to take future cases and leave us all in a dither?

Can't wait for Carol to weigh in on this topic. I'm sure she will have plenty to say, and she won't mince words either. Sic'em Carol!

At 4:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's the president's right to choose.

If Gonzales gets the nod then for many Americans, it can be pointed out he's coming on board a place that hasn't seen a hispanic since CARDOZO. Yes, folks. Those are GIANT SIZED SHOES TO FILL. And, I hope the president picks the best MAN possible.

We've had too many dogs to contend with coming down the pike courtesy of republican presidents, who got stuck on litmus paper.

Do you know the real problem, now? Between O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, we're heading towards acknowledging INTERNATIONAL LAWS! You don't see all the hat-tipping going on? You don't see how we've got people with their kiesters on the supreme-o's bench who lack the talents for the job?

Maybe, for your sake, we should dispense with the robes, and the clothes, entirely. So you can appreciate the differences in genitalis currently up there. Because that's all the stinking litmus paper did!

Roe ain't the foe! Women were getting abortions, or doing it themselves, way before we took this stuff out of back alleys. Too bad today's women don't remember the horror tales of those who threw themselves down stairs. And, those who shoved up knitting needles, hoping to dislodge the unwanted tissue.

Oh, by the way. Instead. You got "gay rights" based on the idea that since married folk can do it backwards, you can't stop all (adult) folk from sticking things up their anus, besides enema tubing.

Disgusting? You should read how Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority's opinions that let this "choice" slip through. And, you're not that far from gay marriages, now. Since sex between adults, by choice, isn't limited by laws.


Let alone that the GOP isn't a composite of ALL voters. And, both the democrats and the republicans are suffering from the losses where people are shouting, now: A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES.

You don't hear them shouting? You might as well put your own houses on fire to prove how "just" you feel. Because it's stupid not to consult with a broad spectrum of views ... when you're picking politicians who can sit in their seats for life.

And, even if you can't puff marijuana while you get cancer treatments; they seem to get life extension methods that are far from routine. Notice how they're beating the odds, will ya?

Notice how they don't give a crap for the issues that affect most everybody. And, notice the direction the supreme-o's are taking ... now that talent is one of the criteria used to pick judges.

At 8:10 PM, Anonymous WNIGHTRIDER said...

They are STUPID, WE need someone who is not afraid OF DOING what is RIGHT instead of potlictcally right, which is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At 9:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The ruleing is uncalled for and shouldn't be taking up the courts time.
Where or why should the highest court in the nation be involved in something rhat isnt written in the constitution.
Nowhere is there an artical or a hint of an article that states SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.I challange anyone to show where it is, Letters written to a man drafting that statement suggesting it be an artical of the document dont mean it was drafted into our Constitution.Quit wasting the courts time and the taxpayers money. 87% of the American public want the 10 commandments on public display.

At 9:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I always hear I can't have religion, but where is my freedom that I can have it? Always you can not do this you can not do that when can I do some thing that I want to do??


Post a Comment

<< Home