Progressive. Queer. Feminist. Opinionated.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Bush announced nominee early to get focus off Rove

From here:

President George W. Bush's nomination of a new Supreme Court justice may give White House adviser Karl Rove a temporary reprieve from public scrutiny of his role in the disclosure of an intelligence operative's identity...

The Supreme Court announcement may freeze things, ``and that's probably a good thing for the White House,'' said Carroll Doherty, an editor at the Washington-based Pew Center.

Bush accelerated his search for a Supreme Court nominee in part because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's name, according to Republicans familiar with administration strategy.

Bush originally had planned to announce a replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on July 26 or 27, just before his planned July 28 departure for a month-long vacation at his Crawford, Texas, ranch, said two administration officials, who spoke on the condition they not be named.

The officials said those plans changed because Rove has become a focus of Fitzgerald's interest and of news accounts about the matter.


Yup, he rushed this nomination so he could take the heat off Rove. Good strategy, but still a shady thing to do. And this Roberts guy keeps sounding worse.

When I first started to post this, I felt a little hesitant. I don't want to jump on the guy simply because he's a conservative who Bush picked. I almost always disagree with conservative politics, but I don't think they necessarily make or break a person. And labeling scares me for obvious reasons.

But evidence is quickly mounting up that if Bush picks someone, he's not the type of character you want to give power to. I'm very uncomfortable with Robert's statement:

In a 1999 radio interview, he said, "We have gotten to the point these days where we think the only way we can show we're serious about a problem is if we pass a federal law, whether it is the Violence Against Women Act or anything else. The fact of the matter is conditions are different in different states, and state laws can be more relevant." (link)


This could simply be a case of poor wording, but the implications the wording holds scares me a bit.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home