SCOTUS Pick Tonight at 9 ET

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Supposedly Bush will be announcing his pick for Justice O Connor's replacement tonight... Rumor is it will be Judge Edith Brown Clement.

And I'm guessing that the early nature of the pick is to try and deflate the Rove controversy. Rumor early on was that Bush wanted to wait until later in the summer so as to leave the nominee twisting in the wind for less time, and to deprive the opposition of a chance to do any real digging on the nominee.

Let the fun begin.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
from here:
Clement doesn't provide much ammunition for opposition groups, but perhaps not much for conservatives to get excited about either. She hasn't written anything notable off the bench (or at least nothing that's come to light yet), and most of her judicial decisions have been in relatively routine and uncontroversial cases.
wondering if this provides insight into the selection thought process.
 

trebblekicked

macrumors 6502a
Dec 30, 2002
897
0
Chicago, IL, USA
can someone tell me how to think about this nomination? i'm too lazy to look it up. ;)

she seems pretty "blah", considering all the hooplah over the scotus position. not much in the way of written opinions to review.

<edit>zimv beat me to it</edit>
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
trebblekicked said:
can someone tell me how to think about this nomination? i'm too lazy to look it up. ;)

she seems pretty "blah", considering all the hooplah over the scotus position. not much in the way of written opinions to review.

<edit>zimv beat me to it</edit>
It's not even official yet, so not much diggin into her decisions has been done by the public. I assume the Bushies have done their homework and are satisfied that she will be a reliably pro-business justice who will not overturn Roe v. Wade.

If she is the one, we'll find out more in the coming days and weeks.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
I think the GOP knows that if they appoint someone who overturns Roe v. Wade, they'll be a minority party again for a long time. I feel they get far more mileage out of having abortion as a wedge issue at election time to drive their base into a frenzy than they would by actually overturning it and having the country (which overwhelmingly supports a woman's right to choose) revolt against them.

Additionally, if the nominee isn't likely to overturn Roe v. Wade they will be far less opposition to what will likely be a very pro-business justice. Which after all, is the top priority for this administration. The religious right will be played for suckers again.

Just my opinion. I just don't happen to think the corporate wing of the GOP actually WANTS Roe v. Wade overturned. And I think the corporate wing of the GOP is the wing in power.
 

Juventuz

macrumors 6502a
Dec 4, 2002
663
0
Binghamton

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Welcome...

MSNBC has this little tidbit too:
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the Bush administration was asking television outlets to broadcast the speech live across the country when he speaks at 9 p.m. ET. Bush's spokesman would not identify the president's choice. But there was intense speculation Tuesday that it would be Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Bush was expected to speak for 10 minutes with the nominee at his side, but would take no questions, NBC News reported.
No questions, huh? I wonder why that could be... :p
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,509
OBJECTIVE reality
mactastic said:
Just my opinion. I just don't happen to think the corporate wing of the GOP actually WANTS Roe v. Wade overturned. And I think the corporate wing of the GOP is the wing in power.
You could very well be right. It's the "family values/Christian" wing that wants Roe v. Wade overturned.

That said, it'll be interesting to see what happens after tonight, if Clement is indeed the nominee. The "values" folks have been waiting years for this chance. To them, this is the ballgame, the reason they elected Bush, the reason they support all the neo-con candidates in the party. If they perceive that Bush is betraying them....
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
isn't bush setting himself up for a smackdown from the christian right?

and if there is no outcry, what do they know that i don't?
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
zimv20 said:
isn't bush setting himself up for a smackdown from the christian right?

and if there is no outcry, what do they know that i don't?
I think you'll hear a lot of howling from the 'values' crowd on the right if the nominee isn't anti-choice. But who else are they going to support? It's not like the WH hasn't burned them before and still gotten their support. What ever happened to that push for an amendment to the constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman? Hasn't gone too far since the heady days prior to the election when the GOP needed a good wedge issue. Has the religious right abandoned the GOP? No. Will they over a justice not willing to overturn Roe? I doubt it. They still want to be at the table of power.

And as far as a 'smackdown', I don't suppose Bush is worried too much about his re-elect numbers anymore ;) so it's not a huge concern for him personally. Those in the GOP who feel they must can go on record as 'grudginly' accepting Bush's nominee so they can tell their constituents that THEY'D be the ones to put a justice on the bench who would overturn Roe, and the posturing can continue.

Bush is likely more concerned with his legacy at this point, and I don't think he wants to go down as the guy responsible for Roe being overturned.
 

Don't panic

macrumors 603
Jan 30, 2004
5,551
695
having a drink at Milliways
mactastic said:
I think the GOP knows that if they appoint someone who overturns Roe v. Wade, they'll be a minority party again for a long time. I feel they get far more mileage out of having abortion as a wedge issue at election time to drive their base into a frenzy than they would by actually overturning it and having the country (which overwhelmingly supports a woman's right to choose) revolt against them.

Additionally, if the nominee isn't likely to overturn Roe v. Wade they will be far less opposition to what will likely be a very pro-business justice. Which after all, is the top priority for this administration. The religious right will be played for suckers again.

Just my opinion. I just don't happen to think the corporate wing of the GOP actually WANTS Roe v. Wade overturned. And I think the corporate wing of the GOP is the wing in power.
very interesting points. do you think that will hold for renhquist substitute too?
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Don't panic said:
very interesting points. do you think that will hold for renhquist substitute too?
Not sure. I just don't see the corporate right allowing anything like abortion to stop their rule. CEOs don't care about abortion, they care about business-friendly court decisions. And coincidentally enough I happened across a story not to long ago saying that businesses (which traditionally have stayed out of SCOTUS fights) have been one of the primary lobbying forces this time around, perhaps even more aggressive than the social conservatives have been. Businesses stand to gain or lose a ****load of money depending on which direction the court leans, and they are ponying up the money to have some input this time around.

And yes the rumor now is that Clement was a diversionary tactic to get everyone to spend time 'oppo-ing' her today whilst the Bushies get all their talking points in order for their surrogates to fan out in support of the nominee ASAP.

Doesn't seem like much of a diversion though, I mean it's just one days worth of digging. We'll have this much on the nominee by tomorrow morning. The 'oppo' teams will be working all night to try to craft some response by the AM news cycle.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
update on front page of nytimes.com:
President Bush chose federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. as his first nominee for the Supreme Court, the Associated Press reports.
 

mac-er

macrumors 65816
Apr 9, 2003
1,455
0
Well, this is what intelligent Americans were afraid of...once again, Bush shows his policy of cronyism by giving someonewho helped his family in some way a position (Roberts helped Bush in stealing the Florida election).

And so, the fascist state begins....anyone who voted for Alfred E. Newman bears responsbility for the downfall of freedom.

I feel sick to my stomach.
 

clayj

macrumors 604
Jan 14, 2005
7,473
180
visiting from downstream
I guess the only thing I have to say about this is that it has ALWAYS been the prerogative of the President to nominate whomever he chooses to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says that the SC has to maintain some specific political balance, or that the outgoing Justice must be replaced by someone of equivalent political viewpoint, or that the Senate has any special power (other than their ability to vote yea-or-nay for the potential Justice come confirmation time).

For anyone (and I mean ANYONE, especially morons like Ted Kennedy) to ignore 200+ years of history and Constitutional precedent shows no respect for the system whatsoever. I don't recall anywhere near the current level of crying when previous Presidents got a chance to nominate a new Justice. And, I might point out, previous Presidents have often had the chance to nominate multiple Justices; this is Bush's first.
 

mac-er

macrumors 65816
Apr 9, 2003
1,455
0
clayj said:
For anyone (and I mean ANYONE, especially ... like Ted Kennedy) to ignore 200+ years of history and Constitutional precedent shows no respect for the system whatsoever. I don't recall anywhere near the current level of crying when previous Presidents got a chance to nominate a new Justice. And, I might point out, previous Presidents have often had the chance to nominate multiple Justices; this is Bush's first.
The consititution also doesn't say that you put someone on the Supreme Court as a reward for him assisting you in stealing an election.

This choice just confirms that Bush is the biggest liar since Richard Nixon to be in the White House...I thought he was supposed to be a uniter.
 

clayj

macrumors 604
Jan 14, 2005
7,473
180
visiting from downstream
mac-er said:
The consititution also doesn't say that you put someone on the Supreme Court as a reward for him assisting you in stealing an election.
Oh, come on. One, please provide evidence that (a) the election was "stolen" and (b) Judge Roberts helped "steal" the election. And two, political circles aren't THAT big... everyone knows everyone. Would you hold it against the judge purely for being a registered Republican? I think you would.

mac-er said:
This choice just confirms that Bush is the biggest liar since Richard Nixon to be in the White House...I thought he was supposed to be a uniter.
How does this confirm that the President is a "liar"? Did he promise to nominate someone else and then go back on his promise?

The problem, I think, is that you'd only be happy with who the President nominates if he nominated a hard-core liberal. Anything else, and he's obviously an a**hole, right?
 

clayj

macrumors 604
Jan 14, 2005
7,473
180
visiting from downstream
Don't panic said:
nope, that he would be in any case ;)
Exactly... the fact is that most liberals would condemn the President as being a stingy bastard if he gave $10 million to charity and kept $1 for himself. The man is in a no-win position with everyone who believes that he somehow "stole" the election in 2000 (helpful clue: he didn't) or who thinks that he is somehow a bigger liar than President Clinton was (helpful clue: unlike Clinton, Bush has NOT been impeached for any reason, nor has he been charged with perjury).
 

mac-er

macrumors 65816
Apr 9, 2003
1,455
0
clayj said:
Oh, come on. One, please provide evidence that (a) the election was "stolen" and (b) ...Roberts helped "steal" the election. And two, political circles aren't THAT big... everyone knows everyone. Would you hold it against the judge purely for being a registered Republican? I think you would.
Roberts, in his law firm, advised and worked for Bush during the recount.

How does this confirm that the President is a "liar"? Did he promise to nominate someone else and then go back on his promise?
Bush is a liar because he said he said he would work to be a uniter, not a divider. All he has done is divide the country. Bush is a liar because he says he will pick the best person for the job, and then he rewards people who do him favors. The Bush administration is full of nothing but his cronys.

The problem, I think, is that you'd only be happy with who the President nominates if he nominated a hard-core liberal. Anything else, and he's obviously an a**hole, right?
Not necessarily. I think a moderate choice would have been an appropriate choice. I was at least hoping for Alberto Gonzalez.

This is a time to be deeply concerned...our rights are finished. Scary times.