२६ सप्टेंबर, २००५
Anticipating the next nomination.
The Senate vote on John Roberts is scheduled for this Thursday. I wonder how soon thereafter Bush will announce the new nomination. Immediately, I hope.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२ टिप्पण्या:
Justice Diane Sykes is the ex-wife of Charlie Sykes, a conservative talk radio host on the largest AM station in the State of Wisconsin, WTMJ 620 AM.
I duno if that tells you anything or not.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is under the impression that the President will make a nomination quickly, although they seem to prefer that he take a slower approach.
Frankly, I disagree with Eddie a little bit. Bush certainly doesn't hem and haw on major decisions. But I also think that the details have usually been sweated out before they get to his desk. Even before O'Connor's retirement, the Bush operatives would have been making their short lists. My guess is that Roberts was the original choice for Chief, but when the O'Connor vacancy came open and Rehnquist appeared intent on remaining, Roberts was nominated for the associate slot. So, the nomination will not be the result of a quick decision.
As to specific persons, I would be loathe to guess. But I would be very surprised if it weren't a woman.
Well, there will be a new line of questioning for sure, with the opening arguments today in the case of the Dover, Pennsylvania school board trying to mandate the teaching of 'Intelligent Design' (a hypothesis with no more scientific evidence to back it up that the nuts who claim we are all descended from space aliens).
Funny, but conservatives don't want to touch that case with a ten foot pole.
eli blake:
Given that evolution is one of those issues on which the real divide is not conservative/liberal, but elite/popular (other examples would be school prayer and spousal notification on abortion), I doubt that anyone in Congress wants to touch this one.
I would like to see a Judge Janice Rogers Brown nomination as well, not for the uncomfortable racial and gender dimensions for the Democrats (though that would be delicious), rather I favor her cause she actually believes in private property and that would be a refreshing change of pace for the high court.
Prof. Wagner raises again the incredibly ugly head of the nightmare scenario: a nomination of Soutero. Karl Rove, apparently, has lost his mind and wants to nominate Gonzales. As Wagner puts it:
"Pick Gonzalez, or anyone who doesn't cause Chuck Schumer to split a gusset, and the base stays home in '06, Dems retake the Senate, Schumer dictates any '07 or '08 Court nominees, and the Dems retake the White House in '08. I can't believe Karl Rove doesn't see that, or doesn't care."
Sean:
No, the divide is among conservatives (which is why this is such a good issue for liberals). There are the conservatives who favor the teaching of I.D. and consider this the next big battle, vs. the conservatives who are concerned about pushing doctrine which is frankly not scientific into a science classroom (and the attendant fact that it is not likely to help us stay ahead technologically, on which our superior military capability is based. There is also the question of how far a government (school board) should go in mandating what, even down the the exact wording, should be taught in the classroom.
Liberals have no such contradictions. We know exactly where we stand on this one.
In fact, Sean,
I published this post just science belongs in science class about a month ago on my blog. And I doubt if you would have any luck finding a liberal who didn't agree with it.
And that is one reason why, as the Dover school district trial gets under way, you will see liberals question the next nominee about it. It is conservatives who have to figure out how to handle it without either appearing like ignoramuses or alienating their base. Liberals are against mandating the teaching of I.D., UFO's or any other hypothesis with no supporting scientific evidence in a science class. It's just that simple (and, I.D. has NO MORE supporting evidence than do the theories of UFO wackos).
Hey Eli Blake, let's go to some black churches. The ministers and the congregants are all pretty liberal, but not what you would call elite. Let's see how they feel about presenting Genesis and Darwin both in the classroom.
I think you hang out with a very narrow subset of liberals.
Sean:
I know plenty of black religious liberals.
And no, they don't support teaching this unproven dogma in a science classroom. For one thing, they care about their kids and they know enough to know that it doesn't qualify as science.
Like I said before, liberals are pretty solid on this one. So expect to see some questions on it.
Alright, Eli Blake, let's see if there are any questions. I don't think that suppressing creationism and/or intelligent design is a winner issue for the left, but maybe some senators see it differently.
Well, I predicted on 9/16 that Bush would come out and nominate Ted Olson that day -- which in retrospect looks ridiculous, since why would he do that BEFORE the Senate vote on Roberts.
Now the Sykes, and Jones buzz are all over Blogosphere, but as was seen with Clement last go around, one should pay them very little mind.
The President marches to the beat of his own blogless drummer.
P.S.: Allow me a "some of my best friends are black" comment, simply to say that in my cirlce, not one of my black friends is a Republican. And not one has a problem with Creationism taught in schools.
But then my circles are pretty square.
Cheers,
Victoria
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा