Supreme Court nominee

[pinkflower21]

I know this is off topic but I was wondering if you guys were going to watch Bush tonight when he announces the Supreme Court nomination. I've been reading on GD that it's not going to be Clement now but someone named Edith Jones and she is supposed to be a lot worse than Clement. Has anyone heard anything?

[rox63]

1. I'm not going to watch *

Watching or listening to * makes me feel like losing my lunch. :puke:

I'll wait and find out about his choice on the internets. I've also heard the same rumors about the nominee. Jones is definitely worse than Clement, although neither one of them is any sort of bargain.

[Mass]

2. I will.be watching, just to know

It seems true that Jones is a lot worse than Clement, but, from what we know about the way these rumors are spread, I would not make too much of them.

[whometense]

3. Check this out:

Who knows? If this is true, they could have tripped themselves up in their effort to temporarily change the storyline. :rofl:

http://rawstory2.com/admin/dbscripts/printstory.php?story=115

Speculation swirls around Bush's choice for Supreme Court
07/19/2005 @ 6:34 pm

Speculation about President Bush's choice for the Supreme Court has seen wild gyrations as the White House began to pull reporters off stories that suggested they would nominate Fifth Circuit judge Edith Clement.

Reporters at both CNN and ABC were told to back off Clement, RAW STORY has learned.

Now, the word coming to RAW STORY from a variety of sources on the Hill and in the media is that the President may go with Edith Jones, another Fifth circuit judge. Some say Jones was the President's choice all along, and Clement was placed as a distraction.

But the story gets wilder.

One report suggests that Bush had always intended to appoint Jones, but that the White House has dug up something from her past, and now they are -- even as late as 6 pm -- not certain of their nominee.

If they did pull Jones out of the ring late, their prospects of finding a female nominee are much more unclear. The only prominent name being thrown around is Justice Janice Rogers Brown, who was just recently confirmed in the Senate after a long wave of filibusters, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, senator from Texas.

The reporter -- who is high-level -- cautioned that they frequently receive 'buzz' from the White House that doesn't pan out, such as the 'retirement' of Chief Justice William Rehnquist that didn't materialize.

So who will it be? No one is willing to call it, the media -- and RAW STORY -- having recently been burned with reports of Rehnquist's imminent resignation.

Other possibilities mentioned include Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson. Most believe Gonzales is no longer in the running, having been savaged by both the right and the left. Senators mentioned are Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and John Cornyn of Texas.

[Mass]

4. Apparently it is John Robert Jr

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050719/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush

- ultra conservative
- said that Roe vs Wade was wrongly decided.

Guess Bush needed some noise to get Rovegate in the background.

And here is his record as a judge. I have the feeling the hearings will be interesting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4140459

[pinkflower21]

5. Yep, I just heard

now why can't the man nominate a moderate conservative. Do we really need a person who thinks Roe V Wade was wrongly decided when 68% of Americans don't feel that way. I should have known Bush would do this. Now get ready for a big old fight.

[rox63]

9. Although I'm a liberal

I would have been perfectly fine if * had nominated a Republican like John Danforth to the Supreme Court.

[sandnsea]

6. O'Connor thought that too

That the privacy rationale behind Roe wasn't based on sound Constitutional interpretation, nevertheless, Roe had become the law of the land and there was also no reason to overturn it. Something like that. I think that's the same sort of thing Roberts said in his 2003 hearing. He's going to be confirmed, save some sort of horrific scandal. This losing battle may not be worth a Rove-Libby-Cheney diversion.

[TayTay]

8. Sad but true

I think he will get confirmed. But the hearings should be very interesting.

[politicasista]

7. Yuk!

:hide: :scared: