<p>what are your thoughts on the situation...</p>
<p>Bush is relishing his power in victory and the search for a woman is on.....or a Latino/a. With victory comes power and we will live to talk about the Bush legacy for many years to come. We can only hope that our country will survive the Bush legacy.</p>
<p>I am tempted to say Gonzales will get the nomination, but I think it may be a bit too blunt of a move. A woman would probably be less controversial.</p>
<p>Gonzales does seem a logical choice and IF they cannot come up with a female then Bush may choose to bring on the fight and put Gonzales up. One thing is certain Gonzales will be a fight. Of course after Katrina maybe Bush will come up with a black female........Rice perhaps????</p>
<p>A few thoughts...</p>
<p>May he rest in peace. Wonderful, principled, thoughtful man - he will be missed. I was sad to hear that news tonight. My hat is off to him for fighting until the end - what a way to spend one's life. </p>
<p>Politically, this will change the landscape of the Roberts nomination. The Dems, if they play their cards right (which usually doesn't happen), will not fight Roberts but will save their energy for a more conservative nominee. Wasn't that how Scalia got through - too much of a long fight over the previous one?</p>
<p>A woman would be the logical choice - and I like the idea of not making O'Connor's seat the "woman's seat," but instead having a woman replace Rehnquist. Then again, this is asking the Republicans do to the good PR thing, which seldom happens. (Tonight is an equal-opportunity bashing evening.)</p>
<p>Why is Gonzales the logical choice? Bush had a short list of nominees for Sandra Day O'Connor's position - why not the same list?</p>
<p>Finally, my conservative, originalist heart cannot help but hope: Scalia for Chief Justice! Overturn Kelo! No more scathing dissents (must say, though, that Scalia dissents in administrative law make this experience worthwhile for me)- perhaps we'll have fiesty opinions instead. :)</p>
<p>to tell you the truth, George Bush is one lucky son of a gun. He get 2 CHOICES FOR SUPREME COURT!!! Most presidents throughout our history didn't even have the chance to nominate even ONE! This is just unbelievably unbelievable that he get two choices.</p>
<p>Actually, Clinton got two nominations (Breyer and Ginsburg), Bush Sr. got two (Souter and Thomas), Reagan got 5, although 1 did not serve, Carter did not get any, Ford had 1, and Nixon got to nominate an unbelievable 6 justices, although 2 did not serve. </p>
<p>So given recent history, Bush's chance at two seats is not as "unbelievably unbelievable" as one might think.</p>
<p>...especially considering that he's in office for 8 years.</p>
<p>Still, some of the justices are quite old - it's possible that he may have more nominations. As of now, his nominations aren't too important, because he is replacing conservative justices with conservative justices. If one of the liberals steps down, the balance will really change.</p>
<p>Aries: From what I have heard about him from a former clerk in Justice White's chambers, principled is not a word commony used around the court to describe him.</p>
<p>You mentioned that on another thread. Will keep that in mind. PM or email if you would like.</p>
<p>Chief Justice Rehnquist was a very principled and thoughful person. What is remarkable was his abilty to carryout a 100 hour plus week on the Court while also following his other interests including writing books.</p>
<p>Does "principled" include trying to slip verbiage into draft opinions that none of the other Justices agreed to? If so, then maybe he was principled. However, I have meet yet to some named "Backdoor Bill" that I would call principled.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have meet yet to some named "Backdoor Bill" that I would call principled.
[/quote]
Yes, one of his greatest principles was "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me."</p>
<p>Justices reveal their principles through their writings not through some nickname revealed third or fourth hand. That's why heresay is not admissible in courts of record.</p>
<p>I will tell my source -- who was a percipient witness in Justice White's chambers -- if you have a source of information other than your own opinion.</p>
<p>Further, the "principles" revealed in his writings, are not the same thing as the lack of "principles" he exhibited in his relationship with the other justices. This has not to do with his judicial philosophy, and everything to do with what kind of man he was, and how is colleagues perceived him. Kind of like someone changing their screen name on a web discussion board after being banned.</p>
<p>The term principle as used in my comment was directed to his legal principles. Since I have never met the man, I cannot presume to speak regarding his personal character. I also think Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were thoughtful and principled. Possibly you and your source would conclude they were not principled people since both owned slaves. Fortunately, history measures great people by the totality of their lives.</p>
<p>And all I am speaking of is his reputation amongst his peers. I could care less how history treats him. His work stands on its own; eveyone has their own opinion of his legal "principles." Howvere, the manner in which he acomplished his work is less than praiseworthy by those who had to work with him.</p>
<p>"Most presidents throughout our history didn't even have the chance to nominate even ONE!"</p>
<p>There are only five US Presidents (James Monroe, Zachery Taylor, William Henry Harrison, Andrew Johnson, and Jimmy Carter) who didn't have the chance to make even a single Supreme Court nomination.</p>