37. BUSH Supreme KANGAROO COURT A & B.
Hollywood comedy writers no longer need to come up with new material. They simply have to observe the Bush administration to find all the comedy they need.
First, many conservative Christians voiced that they felt the most important reason to support Bush over Kerry was to get better Supreme Court nominees. Why, Kerry might give us *liberals* and *pro-aborters*!
(Aside: This is certainly not an endorsement of Kerry, who consorted with the Communist Vietnamese enemy while he was a uniformed American military officer. Such action is treason and worthy of the death penalty. And he is a flaming liberal as well.)
Well, Bush is giving us liberals in federal courts. ALL of those he has nominated have professed that they will make no attempt to reverse the Roe vs. Wade decision which has been used to murder tens of millions of innocent infants since 1973. And now even his front-runner for a Supreme Court position has more baggage than Samsonite. It is Alberto Gonzales - not only is he pro-abortion, but he is the judge responsible for not even allowing parents to be notified when their minor daughters have abortions in Texas. He supported the torture and abuse of prisoners, which in the post 9-11 era could apply to political prisoners. He is also an advocate of illegal alien benefits. He further supports the banning of constitutionally protected semi-automatic arms. But what got Alberto the job was when as Bush’s general counsel in 1996, Gonzo got the then Texas Governor out of jury duty which kept him from having to disclose his 1976 arrest for drunk driving.
If Gonzo is an example of a Bush appointed 'conservative', we might truly have been better off with judges appointed by John Kerry (after all, it was the Clinton appointee Stephen Breyer who cast the deciding vote to allow the Ten Commandments in Texas).
BUT THAT'S NOT ALL ...
If you read the last article posted here, you'll see that Att'y Gen. Gonzalez, because he already is serving as a gov't employee where he has faced many related cases, will have to recuse himself from such cases. Gonzo will in effect be a mannequin on the court. He won't be able to participate or rule in significant cases.
Judge Wapner would still be on the air if he had this kind of material for his TV court show.
Pro-Abort for Top Court Rankles Right
http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/013297.html
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak27.html
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. Gonzales long has been unacceptable to anti-abortion activists because of his record as a Texas Supreme Court justice. Beyond pro-lifers, he is opposed by organized conservative lawyers. Ironically, the same Bush supporters who have been raising money and devising tactics for the mother of all judicial confirmation fights are in a panic that Gonzales will be named. With the president's popularity falling among his conservative base as well as the general populace, a politically disastrous moment may be at hand.
Is The Religious Right Gullible, Naïve, or Willingly Ignorant?
Related http://www.covenantnews.com/baldwin050310.htm
President Bush has repeatedly said that he has no litmus test on the life issue when it comes to appointing federal judges. Why does the Religious Right claim he intends to do something he has plainly and repeatedly denied? Again, are they gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant?
Gonzalez and the Recusal Problem
http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/013296.html
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/11098
If President Bush nominates Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, he won't be naming a new justice. He'll be naming something more like a new half-justice. A Justice Gonzales would have to recuse himself from cases dealing with a wide range of issues — from the Patriot Act to partial-birth abortion — because of his high-level service in the Bush administration.
Federal law is clear: No federal judge, including any Supreme Court justice, may participate in a case if he "has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, advisor or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy." In addition, justices are to recuse themselves "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Given that Gonzales was Bush's White House counsel for the entirety of his first term, and is now attorney general, that means he will have to decline to participate in a lot of important cases.
The administration's legal positions could therefore lose ground precisely because one of their architects would be on the Court.
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to provide constitutional protection for partial-birth abortion. If Gonzales replaces Justice O'Connor, who voted with the majority, that becomes a 4-4 split that leaves the lower courts' judgment in place — which almost certainly means that partial-birth abortion continues without restriction. If Gonzales replaces Chief Justice Rehnquist, who dissented, there's a 5-3 majority for keeping the procedure legal.
Gonzales might be compromised on campaign finance, on Patriot, on affirmative action, on military tribunals for terrorists, and on the disclosure of executive-branch documents. Maybe the Bush administration isn't deeply interested in all of these issues, but it surely wants to maximize its odds of prevailing on some of them. And nobody can know what other issues demanding recusal might come before the Court — or rather, before eight of its justices.
First, many conservative Christians voiced that they felt the most important reason to support Bush over Kerry was to get better Supreme Court nominees. Why, Kerry might give us *liberals* and *pro-aborters*!
(Aside: This is certainly not an endorsement of Kerry, who consorted with the Communist Vietnamese enemy while he was a uniformed American military officer. Such action is treason and worthy of the death penalty. And he is a flaming liberal as well.)
Well, Bush is giving us liberals in federal courts. ALL of those he has nominated have professed that they will make no attempt to reverse the Roe vs. Wade decision which has been used to murder tens of millions of innocent infants since 1973. And now even his front-runner for a Supreme Court position has more baggage than Samsonite. It is Alberto Gonzales - not only is he pro-abortion, but he is the judge responsible for not even allowing parents to be notified when their minor daughters have abortions in Texas. He supported the torture and abuse of prisoners, which in the post 9-11 era could apply to political prisoners. He is also an advocate of illegal alien benefits. He further supports the banning of constitutionally protected semi-automatic arms. But what got Alberto the job was when as Bush’s general counsel in 1996, Gonzo got the then Texas Governor out of jury duty which kept him from having to disclose his 1976 arrest for drunk driving.
If Gonzo is an example of a Bush appointed 'conservative', we might truly have been better off with judges appointed by John Kerry (after all, it was the Clinton appointee Stephen Breyer who cast the deciding vote to allow the Ten Commandments in Texas).
BUT THAT'S NOT ALL ...
If you read the last article posted here, you'll see that Att'y Gen. Gonzalez, because he already is serving as a gov't employee where he has faced many related cases, will have to recuse himself from such cases. Gonzo will in effect be a mannequin on the court. He won't be able to participate or rule in significant cases.
Judge Wapner would still be on the air if he had this kind of material for his TV court show.
Pro-Abort for Top Court Rankles Right
http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/013297.html
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak27.html
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. Gonzales long has been unacceptable to anti-abortion activists because of his record as a Texas Supreme Court justice. Beyond pro-lifers, he is opposed by organized conservative lawyers. Ironically, the same Bush supporters who have been raising money and devising tactics for the mother of all judicial confirmation fights are in a panic that Gonzales will be named. With the president's popularity falling among his conservative base as well as the general populace, a politically disastrous moment may be at hand.
Is The Religious Right Gullible, Naïve, or Willingly Ignorant?
Related http://www.covenantnews.com/baldwin050310.htm
President Bush has repeatedly said that he has no litmus test on the life issue when it comes to appointing federal judges. Why does the Religious Right claim he intends to do something he has plainly and repeatedly denied? Again, are they gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant?
Gonzalez and the Recusal Problem
http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/013296.html
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/11098
If President Bush nominates Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, he won't be naming a new justice. He'll be naming something more like a new half-justice. A Justice Gonzales would have to recuse himself from cases dealing with a wide range of issues — from the Patriot Act to partial-birth abortion — because of his high-level service in the Bush administration.
Federal law is clear: No federal judge, including any Supreme Court justice, may participate in a case if he "has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, advisor or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy." In addition, justices are to recuse themselves "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Given that Gonzales was Bush's White House counsel for the entirety of his first term, and is now attorney general, that means he will have to decline to participate in a lot of important cases.
The administration's legal positions could therefore lose ground precisely because one of their architects would be on the Court.
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to provide constitutional protection for partial-birth abortion. If Gonzales replaces Justice O'Connor, who voted with the majority, that becomes a 4-4 split that leaves the lower courts' judgment in place — which almost certainly means that partial-birth abortion continues without restriction. If Gonzales replaces Chief Justice Rehnquist, who dissented, there's a 5-3 majority for keeping the procedure legal.
Gonzales might be compromised on campaign finance, on Patriot, on affirmative action, on military tribunals for terrorists, and on the disclosure of executive-branch documents. Maybe the Bush administration isn't deeply interested in all of these issues, but it surely wants to maximize its odds of prevailing on some of them. And nobody can know what other issues demanding recusal might come before the Court — or rather, before eight of its justices.
posted by T.G. at 12:12 PM
<< Home