home

Roberts and Katrina

by TChris

Howard Kurtz surveys (with, thankfully, little comment of his own) various reactions to the president’s decision to substitute the conservative John Roberts for the conservative William Rehnquist. The reaction most likely to stimulate severe illness comes from Pat Robertson, who is “thankful” that Hurricane Katrina may have “brought [Roberts] some good.” Perhaps Robertson was praying for a disaster that would kill thousands so that senators would be distracted from Roberts’ confirmation hearings.

Slightly less stunning is conservative Bill Kristol’s concern that by swapping a conservative Roberts for a conservative Rehnquist, the president may feel pressure to nominate a more moderate candidate for Justice O’Connor’s seat. Kristol thinks that would be a betrayal of the president’s base, and he fears that Attorney General Gonzales might be the “moderate” who would emerge from that scenario. The notion that Gonzales, who regards the Geneva Conventions as "quaint," is insufficiently conservative to satisfy the right wing is astonishing. Maybe the president should just go with his base and nominate Pat Robertson instead.

< Thursday Open Thread | NY Times: "Macabre Reminder: The Corpse on Union Street" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Roberts and Katrina (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    The notion that Gonzales, who regards the Geneva Conventions as "quaint," is insufficiently conservative to satisfy the right wing is astonishing.
    That's illustrative of the problem with framing people in a binary (liberal/conservative) fashion. He wrote this memo on torture, but I understand that he's in favor of abortion rights and affirmative action. Labels don't do the job, despite the blogosphere's best efforts to neatly sort everyone.

    Re: Roberts and Katrina (none / 0) (#2)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:28 PM EST
    Hubris:
    He wrote this memo on torture, but I understand that he's in favor of abortion rights and affirmative action.
    This is what the nice people to the right of Bush say. They point to a ruling by the Texas Supreme Court that teenage girls should not have to ask their parents for permission to get an abortion (Gonzales ruled with the majority), and Gonzales' advice to oppose an affirmative action program by the University of Michigan, but not oppose affirmative action entirely. It's not that he's for abortion rights or affirmative action, it's that he's not against them strongly enough for the extremists' taste. It's not the blogosphere that sees everything in binary terms, it's people who say things like "you're either with us or against us". Now where did I hear that ...?

    Re: Roberts and Katrina (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:28 PM EST
    It's not the blogosphere that sees everything in binary terms, it's people who say things like "you're either with us or against us". Now where did I hear that ...? Funny that you state it this way when we're talking about the problem with binary terms. Not possible for more than one group to have a problem with the binary issue, eh? It's not that he's for abortion rights or affirmative action, it's that he's not against them strongly enough for the extremists' taste. That is, there are signs that he is moderate on some issues while his views might be "extreme" on another issue. Which kind of goes back to the original point.

    Re: Roberts and Katrina (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:28 PM EST
    perhaps torquemada is still available. i should think he would more than satisfy bush's conservative base. pat robertson, by comparison, is radical right-wing lite.

    Re: Roberts and Katrina (none / 0) (#5)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:28 PM EST
    Roberts? Somebody who says the executive branch gets a pass on putting away people possibly for life without an opportunity for judicial review. No thanks. Gonzales? A man who tortures language to permit torture? No thanks. With all the more qualified candidates out there, you have to ask why we are now asked to accept as the best choice a man with all of two years experience on the Federal bench. When you recall that the term of the job is for life, looking for reasons not to give someone the job seems prudent and wise.

    Re: Roberts and Katrina (none / 0) (#6)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:28 PM EST
    Hubris, "not extreme enough for the extreme right" is not the same as "moderate". If you're going to complain about black/white thinking, you should be more discerning than that.