Aardbeving in de Amerikaanse politiek

[Kayo]

Vandaag werd er in verschillende mediazenders in de U.S. bericht, met name Washington Post, dat een lid van de Supreme Court haar carrière gaat beëindigen, in pensioen met andere woorden.
Het eindresultaat van deze confrontatie tussen verschillende ideologiën zal waarschijnlijk beslissend zijn voor Bush ...
Wanneer zij weggaat dat vallen de toekomstige sociale bevoegdheden naar Bush, bekende voorbeelden zijn : sociale zekerheid privatisering e.a.

Hier een artikel uit de Washingtonpost.com :


Nomination Could Be Defining Moment for Bush

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 2, 2005; Page A01


There are few genuine earthquakes in American politics, but yesterday's announcement by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor easily qualifies as one. Her retirement is likely to trigger one of the most consequential confirmation battles in a generation, with the ideological balance of the Supreme Court and the future of contentious social issues now firmly in the hands of President Bush.

For more than three decades, the right has been ascendant in America. A Republican Party fueled by the energy and activism of its religious and social conservatives has seized control of the executive and legislative branches of government in Washington and has seen its strength widen and deepen across the country.


The Supreme Court is the lone branch of government where conservatives have been unable to gain the dominant voice, to the great frustration of those on the right. Among the most ardent conservatives, there is no better evidence of the need to change the court than two decisions that marked the end of the term this summer, which limited displays of the Ten Commandments on government property and gave local governments the power to seize private property for commercial development.

The choice ahead for Bush in selecting a successor to O'Connor may prove to be the most important domestic decision of his presidency, given its potential impact on abortion and other issues and rivaling Iraq in its ability to split the country. He will soon decide just how far to try to push the court in a different direction. The bolder he is, the more likely he will touch off a battle that will consume Washington and much of the country for the rest of the summer and whose impact could be felt in the 2006 elections and beyond.

There are huge risks for Bush no matter which way he moves. He faces enormous pressure from the right to appoint someone more conservative than O'Connor. But such a move risks a potentially bruising battle with Senate Democrats and a backlash among voters in the middle of the ideological spectrum, who may worry about the GOP's social and cultural agenda.

But leading Republicans said Bush must move decisively to remake the court. "Given the disastrous decisions of the last few days on private property rights, the Ten Commandments and violent criminals, I think the majority that elected Bush and the House and Senate clearly expects a very conservative nomination," said former House speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia.

The coming decision will prove a defining moment for Bush's presidency. His political strategy is founded on the assiduous courtship of his conservative base, and on big issues he has rarely chosen to disappoint them. But it has never been clear how comfortable the president is in pushing a sharply conservative social agenda. He opposes abortion but has resisted championing the cause of overturning Roe v. Wade . He pushed a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages, but at a time when it was clear it could never pass Congress.

Bush has been forthright, however, in trying to change the complexion of the courts, a political project that he shares with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and other top advisers. Bush has nominated a series of conservatives to fill federal district and, especially, appellate courts, locking horns with Democrats, whose filibusters of those nominations only heightened the White House's determination to keep pushing forward.

But the president also has a contrarian streak, and in personnel decisions he often likes to go with his instincts. Only a handful of people know the full range of calculations he and his advisers are bringing to this decision, but there is no more important issue to social and religious conservatives than the Supreme Court, and there aren't many ways for Bush to fudge on his intentions in the selection of a successor to O'Connor.

"The court is the pivot point on social policy, and O'Connor's seat is the pivot point on the court," said William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, who had predicted O'Connor's retirement. "So it's a pretty dramatic moment."

Both sides believe the political landscape tilts in their direction in a Supreme Court battle, reflecting sharply contrasting philosophies about the role of the courts.

Democrats think Bush has been hurt by Republican-led intervention in the Terri Schiavo case and by the comments of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and others warning that they intend to do whatever they can to rein in the courts. In their estimation, moderate voters, particularly women, recoil at the prospect of a Republican Party that already controls the White House and Congress gaining control of the majority at the Supreme Court. Instead, they want a court system that provides a check and balance rather than a ratification of the conservative agenda.

But conservatives argue, and key White House officials agree, that the public sees the courts as out of touch with their values. They believe that voters want the courts to act as impartial referees in the political battles between the major parties. Conservatives believe a majority of Americans see the courts dominated by judges who are legislating on issues such as gay rights and abortion. They argue that the high court's rulings run wildly counter to public opinion.

The shockwaves of O'Connor's announcement began to reverberate immediately as word began to circulate yesterday morning that it was the court's most celebrated swing justice, and not the ailing chief justice, William H. Rehnquist, who is stepping down.


De vraag is : wat zal de toekomst en de gevolgen zijn voor Amerika ....[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Kayo on 02-07-2005 at 21:37
Reason:
--------------------------------

Vandaag werd er in verschillende mediazenders in de U.S. bericht, met name Washington Post, dat een lid van de Supreme Court haar carrière gaat beëindigen, in pensioen met andere woorden.
Het eindresultaat van deze confrontatie tussen verschillende ideologiën zal waarschijnlijk beslissend zijn voor Bush ...
Wanneer zij weggaat dat vallen de toekomstige sociale bevoegdheden naar Bush, bekende voorbeelden zijn : sociale zekerheid privatisering e.a.

Hier een artikel uit de Washingtonpost.com :


Nomination Could Be Defining Moment for Bush

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 2, 2005; Page A01


There are few genuine earthquakes in American politics, but yesterday's announcement by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor easily qualifies as one. Her retirement is likely to trigger one of the most consequential confirmation battles in a generation, with the ideological balance of the Supreme Court and the future of contentious social issues now firmly in the hands of President Bush.

For more than three decades, the right has been ascendant in America. A Republican Party fueled by the energy and activism of its religious and social conservatives has seized control of the executive and legislative branches of government in Washington and has seen its strength widen and deepen across the country.


The Supreme Court is the lone branch of government where conservatives have been unable to gain the dominant voice, to the great frustration of those on the right. Among the most ardent conservatives, there is no better evidence of the need to change the court than two decisions that marked the end of the term this summer, which limited displays of the Ten Commandments on government property and gave local governments the power to seize private property for commercial development.

The choice ahead for Bush in selecting a successor to O'Connor may prove to be the most important domestic decision of his presidency, given its potential impact on abortion and other issues and rivaling Iraq in its ability to split the country. He will soon decide just how far to try to push the court in a different direction. The bolder he is, the more likely he will touch off a battle that will consume Washington and much of the country for the rest of the summer and whose impact could be felt in the 2006 elections and beyond.

There are huge risks for Bush no matter which way he moves. He faces enormous pressure from the right to appoint someone more conservative than O'Connor. But such a move risks a potentially bruising battle with Senate Democrats and a backlash among voters in the middle of the ideological spectrum, who may worry about the GOP's social and cultural agenda.

But leading Republicans said Bush must move decisively to remake the court. "Given the disastrous decisions of the last few days on private property rights, the Ten Commandments and violent criminals, I think the majority that elected Bush and the House and Senate clearly expects a very conservative nomination," said former House speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia.

The coming decision will prove a defining moment for Bush's presidency. His political strategy is founded on the assiduous courtship of his conservative base, and on big issues he has rarely chosen to disappoint them. But it has never been clear how comfortable the president is in pushing a sharply conservative social agenda. He opposes abortion but has resisted championing the cause of overturning Roe v. Wade . He pushed a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages, but at a time when it was clear it could never pass Congress.

Bush has been forthright, however, in trying to change the complexion of the courts, a political project that he shares with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and other top advisers. Bush has nominated a series of conservatives to fill federal district and, especially, appellate courts, locking horns with Democrats, whose filibusters of those nominations only heightened the White House's determination to keep pushing forward.

But the president also has a contrarian streak, and in personnel decisions he often likes to go with his instincts. Only a handful of people know the full range of calculations he and his advisers are bringing to this decision, but there is no more important issue to social and religious conservatives than the Supreme Court, and there aren't many ways for Bush to fudge on his intentions in the selection of a successor to O'Connor.

"The court is the pivot point on social policy, and O'Connor's seat is the pivot point on the court," said William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, who had predicted O'Connor's retirement. "So it's a pretty dramatic moment."

Both sides believe the political landscape tilts in their direction in a Supreme Court battle, reflecting sharply contrasting philosophies about the role of the courts.

Democrats think Bush has been hurt by Republican-led intervention in the Terri Schiavo case and by the comments of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and others warning that they intend to do whatever they can to rein in the courts. In their estimation, moderate voters, particularly women, recoil at the prospect of a Republican Party that already controls the White House and Congress gaining control of the majority at the Supreme Court. Instead, they want a court system that provides a check and balance rather than a ratification of the conservative agenda.

But conservatives argue, and key White House officials agree, that the public sees the courts as out of touch with their values. They believe that voters want the courts to act as impartial referees in the political battles between the major parties. Conservatives believe a majority of Americans see the courts dominated by judges who are legislating on issues such as gay rights and abortion. They argue that the high court's rulings run wildly counter to public opinion.

The shockwaves of O'Connor's announcement began to reverberate immediately as word began to circulate yesterday morning that it was the court's most celebrated swing justice, and not the ailing chief justice, William H. Rehnquist, who is stepping down.


De vraag is : wat zal de toekomst en de gevolgen zijn voor Amerika ....[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

Vandaag werd er in verschillende mediazenders in de U.S. bericht, met name Washington Post, dat een lid van de Supreme Court haar carrière gaat beëindigen, in pensioen met andere woorden.
Het eindresultaat van deze confrontatie tussen verschillende ideologiën zal waarschijnlijk beslissend zijn voor Bush ...
Wanneer zij weggaat dat vallen de toekomstige sociale bevoegdheden naar Bush, bekende voorbeelden zijn : sociale zekerheid privatisering e.a.

Hier een artikel uit de Washingtonpost.com :


Nomination Could Be Defining Moment for Bush

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 2, 2005; Page A01


There are few genuine earthquakes in American politics, but yesterday's announcement by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor easily qualifies as one. Her retirement is likely to trigger one of the most consequential confirmation battles in a generation, with the ideological balance of the Supreme Court and the future of contentious social issues now firmly in the hands of President Bush.

For more than three decades, the right has been ascendant in America. A Republican Party fueled by the energy and activism of its religious and social conservatives has seized control of the executive and legislative branches of government in Washington and has seen its strength widen and deepen across the country.


The Supreme Court is the lone branch of government where conservatives have been unable to gain the dominant voice, to the great frustration of those on the right. Among the most ardent conservatives, there is no better evidence of the need to change the court than two decisions that marked the end of the term this summer, which limited displays of the Ten Commandments on government property and gave local governments the power to seize private property for commercial development.

The choice ahead for Bush in selecting a successor to O'Connor may prove to be the most important domestic decision of his presidency, given its potential impact on abortion and other issues and rivaling Iraq in its ability to split the country. He will soon decide just how far to try to push the court in a different direction. The bolder he is, the more likely he will touch off a battle that will consume Washington and much of the country for the rest of the summer and whose impact could be felt in the 2006 elections and beyond.

There are huge risks for Bush no matter which way he moves. He faces enormous pressure from the right to appoint someone more conservative than O'Connor. But such a move risks a potentially bruising battle with Senate Democrats and a backlash among voters in the middle of the ideological spectrum, who may worry about the GOP's social and cultural agenda.

But leading Republicans said Bush must move decisively to remake the court. "Given the disastrous decisions of the last few days on private property rights, the Ten Commandments and violent criminals, I think the majority that elected Bush and the House and Senate clearly expects a very conservative nomination," said former House speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia.

The coming decision will prove a defining moment for Bush's presidency. His political strategy is founded on the assiduous courtship of his conservative base, and on big issues he has rarely chosen to disappoint them. But it has never been clear how comfortable the president is in pushing a sharply conservative social agenda. He opposes abortion but has resisted championing the cause of overturning Roe v. Wade . He pushed a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages, but at a time when it was clear it could never pass Congress.

Bush has been forthright, however, in trying to change the complexion of the courts, a political project that he shares with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and other top advisers. Bush has nominated a series of conservatives to fill federal district and, especially, appellate courts, locking horns with Democrats, whose filibusters of those nominations only heightened the White House's determination to keep pushing forward.

But the president also has a contrarian streak, and in personnel decisions he often likes to go with his instincts. Only a handful of people know the full range of calculations he and his advisers are bringing to this decision, but there is no more important issue to social and religious conservatives than the Supreme Court, and there aren't many ways for Bush to fudge on his intentions in the selection of a successor to O'Connor.

"The court is the pivot point on social policy, and O'Connor's seat is the pivot point on the court," said William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, who had predicted O'Connor's retirement. "So it's a pretty dramatic moment."

Both sides believe the political landscape tilts in their direction in a Supreme Court battle, reflecting sharply contrasting philosophies about the role of the courts.

Democrats think Bush has been hurt by Republican-led intervention in the Terri Schiavo case and by the comments of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and others warning that they intend to do whatever they can to rein in the courts. In their estimation, moderate voters, particularly women, recoil at the prospect of a Republican Party that already controls the White House and Congress gaining control of the majority at the Supreme Court. Instead, they want a court system that provides a check and balance rather than a ratification of the conservative agenda.

But conservatives argue, and key White House officials agree, that the public sees the courts as out of touch with their values. They believe that voters want the courts to act as impartial referees in the political battles between the major parties. Conservatives believe a majority of Americans see the courts dominated by judges who are legislating on issues such as gay rights and abortion. They argue that the high court's rulings run wildly counter to public opinion.

The shockwaves of O'Connor's announcement began to reverberate immediately as word began to circulate yesterday morning that it was the court's most celebrated swing justice, and not the ailing chief justice, William H. Rehnquist, who is stepping down.[/size]

[/edit]

[StevenNr1]

Ik heb het niet helemaal uitgelezen maar wanneer precies gaat die nu op pensioen en wanneer weten we wie haar opvolgt??

[Kayo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door StevenNr1

Ik heb het niet helemaal uitgelezen maar wanneer precies gaat die nu op pensioen en wanneer weten we wie haar opvolgt??

Naar verluidt ging ze vrijdag op pensioen, en de kandidaat die haar zal opvolgen daar weet niemand over, het is wel dat zij één van de machtigste vrouwen van Amerika is die een key rol heeft gespeeld in de top court gedurende 24 jaar ...
Belangrijk om te weten is, dat deze gebeurtenis een voordeel zal zijn voor de Bush Administration ...[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Kayo on 02-07-2005 at 22:10
Reason:
--------------------------------

Naar verluidt ging ze vrijdag op pensioen, en de kandidaat die haar zal opvolgen daar weet niemand over, het is wel dat zij één van de machtigste vrouwen van Amerika is die een key rol heeft gespeeld in de top court gedurende 24 jaar ...
Belangrijk om te weten is, dat deze gebeurtenis een voordeel zal zijn voor de Bush Administration ...[/size]

[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Kayo on 02-07-2005 at 22:10
Reason:
--------------------------------

Naar verluidt ging ze vrijdag op pensioen, en de kandidaat die haar zal opvolgen daar weet niemand over, het is wel dat zij één van de machtigste vrouwen van Amerika is die een key rol heeft gespeeld in de top court gedurende 24 jaar ...
Belangrijk om te weten is, dat deze gebeurtenis een voordeel zal zijn voor Bush ...[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

Naar verluidt ging ze vrijdag op pensioen, en de kandidaat die haar zal opvolgen daar weet niemand over, het is wel dat zij één van de machtigste vrouwen van Amerika is die een key rol heeft gespeeld in de top court gedurende 24 jaar ...[/size]

[/edit]

[StevenNr1]

Dat laatste had ik al begrepen Hmz, afwachten dan maar zeker.

[Kayo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door StevenNr1

Dat laatste had ik al begrepen Hmz, afwachten dan maar zeker.

De lang verwachtte strijd in Capitol Hill is ondertussen al begonnen , Bush denkt nu een aarstconservatief lid te kunnen benoemen om zijn conservatieve beleid door te drukken uiteraard.

[garfield]

Bush zal wel een pro-life dude benoemen en eindelijk afrekenen met Roe vs Wade

[Kayo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door garfield

Bush zal wel een pro-life dude benoemen en eindelijk afrekenen met Roe vs Wade

Roe versus Wade ging dat niet om de Texaanse Abortion zaak in de VS ?

Ik ga on-topic blijven, naar verluidt riskeert Bush een politieke risico in de zaak omtrent de benoeming van een rechter in de Supreme Court.
Volgens een mening van een bepaalde conservatieve organisatie Focus, delen ze mee dat de president iemand moet nomineren wiens juridisch filosofie helder zal moeten blijken ... anders zal er veel negatieve veranderingen plaatsvinden in de VS.


Hier een artikel uit Reuters.com :

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The potentially explosive choice of a new Supreme Court justice creates a maze of political risks for President Bush, with a wrong move either angering his conservative base or igniting a partisan brawl that could sink the rest of his second-term agenda.

The retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a crucial swing vote on the divided nine-member court, gives Bush and conservatives a long-awaited opportunity to dramatically shift the court to the right on hot-button social issues like abortion, affirmative action and civil liberties.

But Democrats and interest groups on the left promise an all-out battle to block any nominee they view as too conservative. They have called on Bush to appoint a new justice in the mold of O'Connor, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan who at times sided against the court's most conservative members on a series of crucial 5-4 votes.

Both sides are marshaling money and manpower for an epic political war. Analysts say the fight could pollute Washington's already strained atmosphere and turn off middle-of-the-road voters seen as crucial to Republican hopes to expand their majority in the 2006 congressional elections and win the 2008 White House race.

A prolonged Senate confirmation battle also could make it tough for Bush to build support for languishing initiatives like the war in Iraq and the revamping of Social Security, analysts said.

"Bush has to decide if he wants to keep the base happy and maybe sacrifice his dreams for unity on Iraq -- as well as much of his domestic legislative agenda," said Bruce Buchanan, a professor at the University of Texas.

Keeping conservatives happy has been a key component of Bush's political strategy, and he has made a series of conservative judicial appointments to lower courts that have drawn Democratic opposition. But the chance to dramatically shift the Supreme Court to the right has raised the stakes even higher.

"This was going to be an intense battle whoever retired," said Brian McCabe, president of the conservative Progress for America, which plans an $18 million blitz on behalf of Bush's nominee. "But it is certainly more intense now."

'DEFINING MOMENT' FOR BUSH

Conservatives have pressed Bush to appoint a new justice in the image of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the court's most conservative members and the two justices Bush says he admires most. They also have told the White House that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would not be acceptable because of questions about his views on abortion.


Bron : http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...OLITICS-DC.XML[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Kayo on 04-07-2005 at 19:33
Reason:
--------------------------------

Roe versus Wade ging dat niet om de Texaanse Abortion zaak in de VS ?

Ik ga on-topic blijven, naar verluidt riskeert Bush een politieke risico in de zaak omtrent de benoeming van een rechter in de Supreme Court.
Volgens een mening van een bepaalde conservatieve organisatie Focus, delen ze mee dat de president iemand moet nomineren wiens juridisch filosofie helder zal moeten blijken ... anders zal er veel negatieve veranderingen plaatsvinden in de VS.


Hier een artikel uit Reuters.com :

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The potentially explosive choice of a new Supreme Court justice creates a maze of political risks for President Bush, with a wrong move either angering his conservative base or igniting a partisan brawl that could sink the rest of his second-term agenda.

The retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a crucial swing vote on the divided nine-member court, gives Bush and conservatives a long-awaited opportunity to dramatically shift the court to the right on hot-button social issues like abortion, affirmative action and civil liberties.

But Democrats and interest groups on the left promise an all-out battle to block any nominee they view as too conservative. They have called on Bush to appoint a new justice in the mold of O'Connor, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan who at times sided against the court's most conservative members on a series of crucial 5-4 votes.

Both sides are marshaling money and manpower for an epic political war. Analysts say the fight could pollute Washington's already strained atmosphere and turn off middle-of-the-road voters seen as crucial to Republican hopes to expand their majority in the 2006 congressional elections and win the 2008 White House race.

A prolonged Senate confirmation battle also could make it tough for Bush to build support for languishing initiatives like the war in Iraq and the revamping of Social Security, analysts said.

"Bush has to decide if he wants to keep the base happy and maybe sacrifice his dreams for unity on Iraq -- as well as much of his domestic legislative agenda," said Bruce Buchanan, a professor at the University of Texas.

Keeping conservatives happy has been a key component of Bush's political strategy, and he has made a series of conservative judicial appointments to lower courts that have drawn Democratic opposition. But the chance to dramatically shift the Supreme Court to the right has raised the stakes even higher.

"This was going to be an intense battle whoever retired," said Brian McCabe, president of the conservative Progress for America, which plans an $18 million blitz on behalf of Bush's nominee. "But it is certainly more intense now."

'DEFINING MOMENT' FOR BUSH

Conservatives have pressed Bush to appoint a new justice in the image of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the court's most conservative members and the two justices Bush says he admires most. They also have told the White House that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would not be acceptable because of questions about his views on abortion.


Bron : http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...OLITICS-DC.XML[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

Roe versus Wade ging dat niet om de Texaanse Abortion zaak in de VS ?

Ik zal on-topic blijven, naar verluidt riskeert Bush een politieke risico in de zaak omtrent de benoeming van een rechter in de Supreme Court.


Hier een artikel uit Reuters.com :

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The potentially explosive choice of a new Supreme Court justice creates a maze of political risks for President Bush, with a wrong move either angering his conservative base or igniting a partisan brawl that could sink the rest of his second-term agenda.

The retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a crucial swing vote on the divided nine-member court, gives Bush and conservatives a long-awaited opportunity to dramatically shift the court to the right on hot-button social issues like abortion, affirmative action and civil liberties.

But Democrats and interest groups on the left promise an all-out battle to block any nominee they view as too conservative. They have called on Bush to appoint a new justice in the mold of O'Connor, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan who at times sided against the court's most conservative members on a series of crucial 5-4 votes.

Both sides are marshaling money and manpower for an epic political war. Analysts say the fight could pollute Washington's already strained atmosphere and turn off middle-of-the-road voters seen as crucial to Republican hopes to expand their majority in the 2006 congressional elections and win the 2008 White House race.

A prolonged Senate confirmation battle also could make it tough for Bush to build support for languishing initiatives like the war in Iraq and the revamping of Social Security, analysts said.

"Bush has to decide if he wants to keep the base happy and maybe sacrifice his dreams for unity on Iraq -- as well as much of his domestic legislative agenda," said Bruce Buchanan, a professor at the University of Texas.

Keeping conservatives happy has been a key component of Bush's political strategy, and he has made a series of conservative judicial appointments to lower courts that have drawn Democratic opposition. But the chance to dramatically shift the Supreme Court to the right has raised the stakes even higher.

"This was going to be an intense battle whoever retired," said Brian McCabe, president of the conservative Progress for America, which plans an $18 million blitz on behalf of Bush's nominee. "But it is certainly more intense now."

'DEFINING MOMENT' FOR BUSH

Conservatives have pressed Bush to appoint a new justice in the image of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the court's most conservative members and the two justices Bush says he admires most. They also have told the White House that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would not be acceptable because of questions about his views on abortion.


Bron : http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...OLITICS-DC.XML[/size]

[/edit]