In partial defense of Nixon: he also appointed Rehnquist.
Also, the problem with Nixon was not that he left things alone, but rather that he was actually pretty liberal on many issues: wage and price controls, affirmative action.
I could handle a President who left things alone on the domestic front. It's the engineers that are the problem.
Except that Bush promised to leaving things alone on the foriegn policy front--i.e. no nation building. . .
Justice O'Connor (and Justice Souter) are the perfect arguments for Mark's we have the Justices we deserve.
Not only does O'Connor's jurisprudence of splitting the difference between the extremes perfectly reflect how the majority of americans make most moral decisions in their lives, the fact that we continue to get O'Connors, Souters and Blackmuns is a direct result of the fact that no one takes "our guys" to task when they don't follow through on their direct-mail solicitation material, I mean campaign primary speeches.
I just can't understand why we can push through a war that most of the planet objected to, but can't get a couple of justices put on the bench to outlaw infanticide and institutionalized sodomy.
Also, Reagan put in Scalia and Bush Sr. put in Thomas.
Here is the thing. We have no idea as to how a justice is going to turn out on a number of issues. Souter (bush sr. thought) was suppossed to be a 'stealth' conservative. Also, no one with the record of Thomas would have gotten nominated if he wasn't black. We all know that anita hill was the last ditch effort to derail the man's nomination because he wasn't the 'right' (or is that 'left') black man to fill the court according to the more lefty's out there.
So, I don't know that we really got what we expected in a number of cases.
Depressing news. I wish W. would spend some of his political capital and for once just pick a fight (on something domestic). He'll get lambasted no matter what so why not take the initiative?
Say it with me: Chief Justice Scalia.
Sounds nice, doesn't it? I'm picturing the NARAL leadership spontaneously combusting, and it feels good. 
What does NARAL stand for?
(It's been six months since the last name change. I thought I should check.)
Honest Question:
What makes anybody think George W. Bush's views on abortion are in line with the Catholic Church's views?
I think Bush's silence on the recent Supreme Court rulings and no effort on an abortion constitutional amendment says volumes. I could be wrong but I don't think he supports the catholic view on abortion and neither will his Supreme Court nominees.
"What does NARAL stand for?"
Sounds like a contest to me.
How about: Need Another Raging Activist Lefty
Is NARAL: National Abortion Rights Action League?
If people have a right to an abortion, do they have a right to a uterus?
Is NARAL: National Abortion Rights Action League?
/
If people have a right to an abortion, do they have a right to a uterus?
/
/
How about "Chief Justice Thomas?"
Roger that Ed.
Joseph,
The Supreme Court (or any federal court for that matter) has no business interpreting the Constitution to conform to the Catholic view on abortion. It should treat abortion properly under the Constitution, which is leave to the state legislatures to decide.
It is quite possible that Bush is not pleased by Laurence, but it would be foolish for him to rattle the cages of his enemies when one or more new Supreme Court nominations could be weeks or months away.
Hi Mike,
I'm aware of the relationship betwen the supreme Court and Catholic teaching. What I find curious is the implied assumption that President Bush is "pro life." I'm not so sure he is and I'm not sure he would be disappointed with an appointment that is "conservative" but does not favor reversal of Roe v. Wade.
Joseph,
GWB on Sunday January 19, 2003 declared this as 'national sanctity of human life day.' I have a copy of this proclamation and it is very pro life. I also think that when he says stuff like wanting to select justices like Scalia and Thomas (who are both pro life) you can read between the lines a little bit. Also he reintroduced the 'mexican city' (or whatever its called) plan for US Aid, etc, etc.
Is he maybe using the pro life issue as a means to power? Well, maybe. But that doesn't make a whole bunch of sense because I think the country is pretty much split down the middle.
Pax christi
Joseph,
Well, who can really say what is on GWB's mind or in his heart? I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt for the reasons that Dale suggests, but it is certainly reasonable to be skeptical. Let's just pray that God inspires him to make the right moral decisions -- both strategic and tactical.
God bless.
We gave Reagan the benefit of the doubt, George H. W. Bush the benefit of the doubt, Newt the benefit of the doubt. . .
How long do we have to pretend the "big tent" reqires that nothing but the most incremental sops be given to the pro-lifers, while decisions like Casey, Lawrence. . . and justices like Souter become the norm in "compassionate conservatism?"
Bob Graham points this out, and he gets Sununu's son--Sununu who assured us Souter was a "home run"--ousting him from office.
As seen from the recent nomination fiascos, it takes more than a President to turn a nominee into an appointment. Until we get rid of the Daschles, its business as ususal.
Commenting by HaloScan
