I've been having a bit o' fun reading the right-wing blogs the past half-hour or so (that's my time limit for right-wing blogs, by the way) about possible replacements for Sandra Day O'Connor. Besides general jubilation that O'Connor is leaving (have they forgotten that "Sandy baby" helped put Dubya in the White House back in 2000?), lots of wingnuts are busy wringing their hands over the prospects that President Bush will pick his good friend, Alberto "Grand Inquisitor" Gonzales, to fill the O'Connor vacancy. And they're not happy about, not at all. It seems that Gonzales is not far, far, FAR right wing enough for the wingnuts. I mean, hey, if waterboarding's ok, why not the rack or the Iron Maiden? C'mon, dude, get TOUGH on those terrorist bastards!
Gonzales is a great choice for Justice if you are left of center, but is a conservative's nightmare.1. He has served on the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic organization that supports such items as the "DREAM Act," which would mandate states to offer in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens--thus providing them with benefits not available to U.S. citizens from other states.
2. He is no friend of the Second Amendment--during his confirmation hearings he told the U.S. Senate he supports extending the expired federal assault weapons ban.
3. And pro-lifers have serious concerns about his nomination.
4. Let's not forget Alberto's role in the Grutter decision on affirmative action. Ted Olson's original drafts of briefs in Grutter argued against any consideration of race in the composition of student bodies in state schools. Enter Gonzales and his edits praising diversity and arguing it could be a compelling state interest.
Oh my god, he was a member of La Raza and supported the assault weapons ban. The horror! The horror! The Grand Inquisitor is not Inquisitorial enough!
Now, here's another right-wing blog, PoliPundit, on their feelings and preferences:
ustice Sandra Day O?Connor is retiring!This is great news!! We can finally replace a ?swing? vote on the Supreme Court with a genuine Constitutionalist. About time too.
[...]
My choices to replace O?Connor are either Judge Janice Rogers Brown, or Judge Priscilla Owen. Both are sufficiently conservative, young, and female. And both were just confirmed by large margins by the US Senate. It would be very difficult for the ?Gang of 14? compromisers to filibuster either of them.
Janice Rogers Brown? Priscilla Owen? We're talking "nuclear option" big time if that happens. These women are radical rightwingers who would not get a single Democratic vote for the Supreme Court. They would undoubtedly be fillibustered, setting up a showdown of historic, even biblical proportions. In contrast, Alberto Gonzales would most likely win confirmation easily, even if that pissed off the salivating, drooling, knuckle-dragging portion of the far right wing. Here's some analysis by neo-conservative John Podhoretz on a possible Gonzales pick:
there seems to be a supposition here that the president is obliged to fulfill conservative wishes in his appointments to the Court. He isn't, though he should. I refuse to believe that if the president nominated Al Gonzales, he couldn't get him through. Every Republican in the Senate (well, one was absent that day) voted for Gonzales for Attorney General.......there seems to be a lot of angry talk on the Right that hints at blocking a choice with which some on the Right will be unhappy. That is political and ideological suicide. It will finish off this presidency and splinter the GOP before 2006 (and more importantly, 2008).
Those are interesting comments by Podhoretz, that a Gonzales nomination could cause the fissures in the Republican Party to crack open wide, possibly swallowing up the GOP's chances in 2006 and 2008. Now this, my friends, is a consummation devoutly to be wished. Let us pray that Podhoretz is on to something here!
Even if the Republican Party doesn't commit "suicide" over Alberto Gonzales, however, Ramesh Ponnuru does raise a good point about the potential 2008 Republican Presidential candidates:
If [Gonzales is] nominated, it becomes a tough vote for at least some of the Republican party's 2008 hopefuls. George Allen, Bill Frist, and even Rick Santorum and Chuck Hagel would have trouble with either a yes or a no vote. (Not that I think Santorum or Hagel are serious candidates.) Dick Cheney, if he's running, pays a price too.
It's fascinating who Ponnuru lists first there, our own fine Senator George Allen. So, what WOULD Allen do in the case of a Gonzales nomination? If he votes "yes," he pisses off the religious right wingers who he will need to win the GOP nomination. If he votes "no," he pisses off moderate Republicans, Independents, and Hispanics who he will need in the general election. Tough one.
On the other hand, if Bush nominates someone out of the mainstream, like Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen, Senator Allen could vote "yes" and please the far right wing. However, Brown or Owen would be deeply divisive nominees, thus setting up the 2008 election as another bitter, nasty, ugly situation....did I mention nasty and bitter, by the way? What about ugly?
Alternatively, Allen could show some independence and moderation for a change by opposing a Brown or an Owen nomination. This, of course, would infuriate the Republican "base" but please most Americans. In other words, the chances of Allen opposing a Brown or an Owen are about as high as the chances of hell freezing over in Virginia today (hint: it's really, really hot outside!)
No matter what, this Supreme Court situation is going to be "interesting." Unfortunately, I mean "interesting" in the sense of the ancient Chinese curse: "may you live in 'interesting' times." To be continued...