Indianapolis Star: Bush should move SCOTUS to the right "without regret"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

September 7, 2005

today's editorial
Bush should aim right without regret

Our position: President shouldn't hesitate to continue moving Supreme Court to the right.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050907/OPINION/509070339

President Bush is two-for-two in regard to Supreme Court nominations. John Roberts, an outstanding choice to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's position as associate justice, remains a fine selection now that he's been tapped to serve as chief justice. But the biggest test for Bush in terms of the court is yet to come.

The president has maintained consistently that his highest priority in selecting jurists is to nominate "strict constructionists" like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. He fulfilled that promise with the Roberts nomination.

The pressure now to nominate a "moderate," however, will mount as Democratic senators and well-funded political organizations on the left begin to concede Roberts' confirmation and move on to fight the next round. Will the president fulfill his promise to the millions of conservative voters who elected him twice or give in to the political pressure of the moment?

Bush has a sizeable list of qualified candidates to choose from in filling the O'Connor seat, including Miguel Estrada, Edith Jones and Michael Luttig. While each of those names, and others on the list, would touch off torrents off protest from the more strident activist groups, avoiding a fight shouldn't be the president's highest priority at this point.

[Wabbajack]

1. * will be taking their advice

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

2. Yeah. You have to wonder why they felt compelled to print this.

My guess is that Rove, or someone in the administration, wanted to reassure "the base."

But an article urging Bush to do whatever he wants without regret?

:silly:

[punpirate]

4. I have little doubt that this editorial was suggested by...

... Mitch Daniels' office. As well, the Indy Star is not known for its progressive politics--not by a long, long shot.

[WCGreen]

6. I don't think it was suggested by anyone....

These fellas are pure constructionalists, ie any thing that happened after 1787 should not be considered viable...

[Missy M]

3. How about the millions of voters who didn't vote for bush.....

including the 2000 election when Gore won the popular (and I might add the electoral) vote. Is Roberts an outstanding choice with this newspaper because he's from Indiana and only that reason?

[Silverhair]

5. This is news?

An RW paper has an RW editorial. News flash: Water is wet.

Yawn.