They announced on Fox News Channel's headlines tonight that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has declared Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a qualified nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court (story here). Reid's endorsement should be the kiss of death to anyone's nomination. If the hard Left approves of a potential nominee, that person should not be nominated.
My concern, though, is not the Democrats and their approval of a nominee. It's President Bush.
From reading a couple biographies about him, I can see that the quality he values most is loyalty. He likes to surround himself with people whose loyalty he can count on, and in turn, he returns that loyalty to them. Dick Cheney. Karen Hughes. Karl Rove. Alberto Gonzales.
President Bush promised that his nominees to the Supreme Court would be in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. But I'm concerned that his loyalty will outweigh his campaign promise. He is a man of conviction, who does what he believes is right--and public opinion be damned. We can write to him, put pressure on him, and relentlessly make it clear we want a strict constructionist nominated to the Court, but if his mind is made up in favor of someone who doesn't have that kind of record, he won't change it.
My dream nominee? Robert Bork.
Let President Bush make a statement by nominating Bork. Let everything hit the fan and circulate for a little while, and then Bork can withdraw his name. Then the President can nominate one of the younger men or women who have been listed as strong, constructionist possibilities by Hugh Hewitt and other conservative law professors.
As Hugh says in his Weekly Standard column, "I expect some combination of Judges Garza-Luttig-McConnell-Roberts to provide the two nominees that will probably be needed."
Hugh is an optimist, fully expecting President Bush to nominate a Scalia/Thomas to the bench. Me? I'm not so sure. I won't be holding my breath.
No comments:
Post a Comment