Last night, I was listening to Tucker Carlson’s show as I drifted off to sleep, and before I actually fell asleep, I heard this exchage:
CARLSON: Luckily, you’ll be back tomorrow, Rachel Maddow. But e-mail it, if you know, because I don’t.
Next situation, the battle for Supreme Court. President Bush says there’s, quote,
Rocky Smith
Quite frankly, I’d be VERY suprised if Bush nominated a pro-choice person. And why should he?
Chris
The ONLY possible reason is because Gonzalez is such a good, loyal pal. Bush seems to value that highly. Otherwise, no way. He has a litmus test for all non-attorney generals.
ppgaz
What’s hilarious to me is that the Dobsonites seem to think that if they can load up the court, and get Roe overturned, then …. then what?
Do they really think that millions of people will then dutifully trudge to Mexico or Canada or get out the coathangers when they want to have control over their own lives?
It’s my belief that the cow is out of the barn on this. It’s too late for the power mongers and the manipulators to wield that kind of control over the populace.
Overturning Row would be a huge disaster for the right, and the country. It simply wouldn’t stand. Whether you agree or not that it should happen, I will bet you your dollars to my donuts that it would not stand.
Demdude
Equally silly is that he won the election based on appointing right wing judges. The moderates voting for him, giving him the election, did not have this on the top of their list.
Of course he is not going to appoint a pro-choice judge, we can only hope for the lessor of the evils (my leftist opinion).
Jeff
“Last night, I was listening to Tucker Carlson’s show as i drifted off to sleep…”
Why in the living hell would you want the last thing you hear before falling asleep to be Tucker Carlson’s voice?
CalDevil
Do we know for a fact that no Bush-appointed judge is pro-choice?
I know that if I had a vote on the Supreme Court, I’d be inclined to be against Roe because of my view of the Constitution.
Yet, I am strongly pro-abortion (yes, pro-abortion; as in I support legal abortion). And if I were in a legislature, I would strongly support keeping it legal and even support paying the cost for women who could not afford it.
I wonder whether there are at least a couple of Bush judges who might have similar views.
Doug
Probably because I don’t have a uterus, I’m dutifully married, etc. — more and more I want every anti-sex, pro-religion thing these superstitious, sexually repressed yahoos stand for in the full glare of the public eye. As a practical matter, I’m much too boring for it to have much of an effect on my life anymore. As a political matter, I think the Dobsonite agenda is more pernicious when the general public is unaware.
pmm
Demdude wrote:
“Equally silly is that he won the election based on appointing right wing judges. The moderates voting for him, giving him the election, did not have this on the top of their list.”
That’s true, but any candidate who wins an election does so with the support of voters who have different priorities. Given the closeness of most Presidential elections, practically all components of the winning coalition of voters can argue that it was their support that put the President in office, to include those who voted for Pres. Bush in order to get conservative judges nominated. There was (and is) a fair amount of passion on the right to support the President in order to get judges nominated that reflect conservative policy preferences, just as the left calls for and supports Democratic opposition to the President’s selection of various nominees.
p.lukasiak
the question with concerns to judges is not whether they are pro- or anti-choice — the question is whether they will respect Rove v. Wade as “settled law” and respect the importance of precedent in matters of Constitutional interpretation. Neither O’Connor nor Kennedy could be described as “pro-choice”, yet both voted to affirm Rove v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and did so because they valued judicial precedent over their own ideological biases.
What has the far-right so worked up about Gonzo is the fact that he recognizes the importance of precedent, and ruled based on established precedent and settled law in an abortion case. That doesn’t make him “pro-choice”, it merely makes him a judge that respects the law.
jmaier
What is silly is anyone pontificating about how they want “originalists” or “textualists” or conservative judges. Both sides want political activists — they just disagree on the positions.
Strict constructionist codeword for Roe v Wade is bad law and really has nothing to do with framer’s intent or any such hogwash.
Demdude
Don’t disagree PNRN. I guess I was responding to the argument that President Bush has some great mandate to do this. After re-reading the comments, that wasn’t in the article.
After reading so many of the political weblogs, I just assumed it was there. My bad.
Philosphy is a great thing to discuss on all the appointments, but at the end of the day, without the votes, it is just an academic exercise. Bush will get whomever he wants if he can hold his party together.
Don
Why in the living hell would you want the last thing you hear before falling asleep to be Tucker Carlson’s voice?
At least with your eyes closed you can’t see that stupid f*****g bowtie.
I’d be VERY suprised if Bush nominated a pro-choice person. And why should he?
He shouldn’t. He also shouldn’t nominate a pro-life person. He ought to nominate someone interested in upholding the law. Unfortunately nobody gets to escape the two categories – both sides think anyone who hasn’t come out for them thinks that means they’re against them. Sith thinking, you know.
Randolph Fritz
There’s a question of what’s in the tests, I think: there’s a difference between a test which says, “we’ll accept a competent, moderate jurist” and one which says, “we want a judge which supports our particular politics.”
John
Are the judges anti-choice or anti roe vs. wade.
You can be pro-choice and anti roe vs. wade. Its not that hard, you just have to believe that the “right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure” does not automatically provide a complete right to privacy, and that a complete right to privacy does not automatically lead to abortion on demand. if roe vs. wade was overturned, the argument would be kicked over to the states legislative branches, which is where it belongs anyway, and probably some sort of European style restrictions would be the average. Right losses big club against left, and people think they actually have some say about their society. BFD.
Sojourner
It’s a BFD to women who live in very conservative states and don’t have the money to travel.
There are consequences and, of course, it’s the poorest among us who will suffer the most. No laws would keep the Bush twins from their abortions.