Tuesday, July 19, 2005

More Than Ten Years

President Bush has chosen John G. Roberts for his nominee to the Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O'Conner (who announced her retirement on July 1st). At least that appears to be the case.

Speculators (otherwise known as reporters) have been hashing this out all day. Most assumed that GWB would choose another woman for the nominee. This has been talked of a lot since First Lady Laura Bush suggested that it would be nice to replace O'Conner with another woman on the court. I agree with the First Lady, but I think Bush should have chosen Priscilla Owen. That would have been somewhat explosive, considering it took him three tries to get her elevated to her current judicial status. And if you put her name into Google you will get nothing but reports that badmouth her. Nobody wants another confirmation hearing like that of Bork in 1987.

Roberts appears to have a squeaky-clean and conservative record. He has written against Roe v. Wade, but he has also stated that he must uphold it because it is law. You can read more about him in the above link, and you can read more about the process as it occurs here.

After years of filibusters and total crap, I certainly hope these hearings will be quick and clean. In May, Bush reached the Gang of Fourteen deal, which is supposed to help stop filibusters in relation to confirmations. We will see how that goes, won't we? Personally, I find it amusing that Democrats are so gung ho for filibusters. I would point out that the most famous filibuster was the 57 day filibuster that attempted to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I think that was the longest filibuster ever, but I could be wrong. The late Senator Strom Thurmond holds the longest one person speech in a filibuster (or anyting on the Senate floor). He held out for 24 hours and 18 minutes. During that speech Thurmond urinated into a spitoon located near him on the Senate chamber's floor. Anyway. That's just a bit of trivia. I find it odd that so many can uphold something that has been used for so much wrong. The filibuster has been a hindrance to freedom many times. It is most well known for the moments that southern Senators held out against civil rights legislation, even civil rights legislation that banned public lynchings. Yet the ones who were and are against the way it was used in the past are the ones who leap at the chance to filibuster a court nomination now.


HuskerFoley7 said...

Esther, I'm glad I have you around because honestly, I don't understand any of what is going on in Washington right now. I just hope and pray someone who is more conservative and moral gets in!

Esther said...

From all accounts, Roberts sounds very similar to Chief Justice Rehnquist. He is well respected by just about everyone. He has an excellent paper trail and it would be difficult to find fault with him. Best of all he is conservative. In fact, I am laughing and laughing at the fact that everyone thought Bush would select someone like O'Conner, someone who would be so middle line you could never tell which side he or she would choose. And Bush showed them all up, he picked the man he thought was right for the job. I do not always, or even often, agree with Bush. But this time I do.