Today in Supreme Court History: August 17, 1988

8/17/1988: Republican party nominates George H.W. Bush for President. He would appoint David Souter and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.

President George H.W. Bush's appointees to the Supreme Court

 

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Souter: an unknown quantity, unobjectionable because no paper trail and no apparent substance. Pretty much a reflection of Bush himself.

Thomas: a black mediocrity conservative whom even Bush considered not experienced enough, but he knew that objecting Democrats could be accused of racism.

The appointments one would expect from "a man of astounding shallowness", who cared only about winning office and was uninterested in policy. As one pundit put it, referring to Bush, "Men want to be President because they want to do something. Boys want to be President because they want to be something."

[PeteRR]

No paper trail for Bush 41? War hero at 21. Abandoned his patrician life in the NE to become a wildcatter. CIA chief. VP.

Let's hear your CV.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Held lots of jobs but left no mark in any of them.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Let’s hear your CV."

"Held lots of jobs but left no mark in any of them."

Sorry. But what about George Bush

[Don Nico]

Your very narrow view. He was an excellent director of CIA, highly respected by Agency employees

[Dan Schiavetta]

Looked the other way while CIA was conducting terrorism in support of right-wing dictatorships. I don't call that "excellent".

If you want to misuse something, put George Bush in charge of it. He also ran the Republican National Committee under Nixon.

[Bob from Ohio]

Who are those quotes from? Not finding either on an internet serach.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The first is from Garrison Keillor in a 1988 op-Ed. The second is (I think) Mario Cuomo. I remembered both when the quotes were made.

[Bob from Ohio]

Radio personality and a Dem [rival to Bush] politician. That's where I look for all my insights on GOP politicians.

Bush had accomplished more by his 21st birthday than either of those men ever did.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don't denigrate the service of war veterans. In case you haven't noticed, only Republicans do that.

[PeteRR]

Batting .500.

[Brett Bellmore]

I view the elder Bush as Reagan's biggest mistake, even bigger than Iran-Contra.

In '80 he had to balance the ticket to keep the RINOs from jumping ship, so he picked Bush, a known liberal Republican, for his running mate. By '84 he was popular enough he could have picked anybody for a running mate and been reelected, he ended up carrying 49 states. He could have hand picked a proper successor who'd have continued his policies.

But as an expression of personal loyalty, he kept Bush on as his running mate, in effect anointing his political opposite to be the party's nominee in 1988. Bush ran claiming he'd be Reagan's 3rd term, but, (Quite predictably!) as soon as he was President himself he set about systematically undoing everything Reagan had accomplished, because they really didn't see eye to eye on much.

To give just one example, Reagan had reined in the BATF's abuses, stopping just short of abolishing the hated agency. Bush? He let them off the choke chain and told them, "Sic 'em!". A long series of escalating atrocities resulted, of which the most famous were Ruby Ridge and Waco. (Which was planned under Bush, and only executed under Clinton.)

Souter wasn't a mistake, he was exactly what Bush was aiming for. It was Thomas, who conservatives came to treasure, that was Bush's mistake.

[Krychek_2]

By RINOs you mean the non-lunatic fringe of the party?

[Don Nico]

yes!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Picking someone you disagree with is a worse mistake to be Vice President (who pardoned the criminals anyway) than allowing people to violate the law to sell arms to an adversary to fund right-wing death squads in another country?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Bah need an edit/delete function. “Disagree with to be Vice President is a worse mistake than…”

[Bob from Ohio]

"right-wing death squads"

The Contras were an anti-Communist resistance group.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That murdered, raped, and tortured civilians with the full knowledge of the US government.

Just how many rapes are acceptable to you bob, to defeat communism? How many would you sweep under the rug? How many would you personally commit?

[Bob from Ohio]

Now do the Sandinistas.

"came under international criticism for human rights abuses, mass execution and oppression of indigenous peoples." wikipedia

Just how many murders are acceptable to you LTG, to bring about communism? How many would you sweep under the rug? How many would you personally commit?

[LawTalkingGuy]

“ Just how many murders are acceptable to you LTG, to bring about communism? How many would you sweep under the rug? How many would you personally commit?”

Zero. I am not a communist or a sadanista and have never once supported a militant group or dictatorship of any type whatsoever.

Your turn.

[Bob from Ohio]

If you oppossed the Contras, you supported the Sandinistas dude.

Your Sunday school holier than thou attitude not withstanding.

[Nige]

The binary thinking of someone who prefers one lot of murderers and rapists over another.

[LawTalkingGuy]

1) I wasn't born.

2) This is a false choice and you know it. There is ALWAYS a moral choice not to support known murderers and rapists. You are making yours, because you have a demonstrated propensity for sadism and cruelty. You probably support Pinochet and the El Salvadorian death squads who murdered and raped American nuns.

You have a number of rapes that is acceptable yo you, but you're too embarrassed to share what that number is. You're a thug AND a coward.

[Bob from Ohio]

1) maybe you will grow up

2) We supported Stalin, arguably the second worst leader in human history, because the guy he was fighting was worse. The Red Army raped half the women in eastern Germany. Sometimes there are no good options for nations to choose from.

[Nige]

The US and the USSR were allies. The contras were funded and armed and trained by the US for the purposes of overthrowing a government the US didn't like. Sorta like the Taliban, when you think about it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Bob,

You mistake your cynicism, cruelty, and nihilism for maturity and adulthood. But these aren't signs of maturity, simply character flaws. I have likely done more growing in my short time than you have; great physical suffering tends to age one rather quickly. And through those struggles, I have come to recognize the need to have an attitude that is consistently and firmly against cruelty and deliberate infliction of human suffering. With that in mind, one can never as a moral matter voice anything but opposition to acts of cruelty. There are always options, there is always a choice. It is true that we as individual moral actors can't necessarily control what politicians and soldiers do. But we absolutely can control what we praise, honor, and identify as morally good acts. I choose to endorse neither Contras, Sandinistas, or any other bloodthirsty militia. You choose to endorse one group's acts as a good thing. That is a reflection of your inner soul, and you have to reckon with it at some point.

[Bob from Ohio]

Such a self rightous blow hard.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If the best you got is self-righteous blowhard, I’d say I’m doing pretty well. Better than a cynical, cruel, and nihilistic misanthrope. I think most people in the real world, given the choice, would rather be around Kyle Brovloski than Eric Cartman.

[Artifex]

You’re a thug AND a coward.

Your self righteousness grows a bit abrasive. Obama unilaterally transferred $1.7 billion to one of the most murderous regimes on the planet in defiance of congress. I simply note that if you voted for Barak, you have absolutely nothing to say on the topic ....

[LawTalkingGuy]

It must be abrasive because that's the only way to shame people into recognizing the odiousness of their views. I am not going to be diplomatic with people who support murderers.

As for Obama, I assume you are talking about Iran (although it is hard to tell because the USA gives so much aid to so many evil regimes and causes). I roundly condemn any aid to brutal regimes, but when you live in the USA that's what you're getting no matter who you vote for.

[Brett Bellmore]

In the sense that the Iran-Contra policy was illegal, (If the Democrats had tried to impeach him over it, I'd have agreed they had a valid case.) but at least rationally calculated to achieve its aims.

Keeping Bush on was just stupid. And saddled the GOP with the Bushes for decades to come.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“but at least rationally calculated to achieve its aims.”

Through aiding, abetting, and supporting the torture murder and rape of civilian populations. That’s the issue.

[Nige]

'but at least rationally calculated to achieve its aims'

'They planned their crimes.'

[Don Nico]

"worse mistake to be Vice President"
You mean such as Kamela Harris?

[David Nieporent]

In ’80 he had to balance the ticket to keep the RINOs from jumping ship,

Please stop with this nonsense. RINO does not mean "Any Republican who disagrees with Brett Bellmore's peculiar views."

And it's particularly anachronistic in discussing American politics before the ideological sorting of the 21st century. Before that were many many moderate and liberal Republicans, who were as fully Republican as the most fire-breathing hard right winger. (And similarly, many many conservative Democrats, as fully Democratic as Ted Kennedy.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Please, I was politically active in the 80's, and well recall the discussions at the time. Bush was an exercise in ticket balancing to keep the party's left-wing from bolting.

Maybe you don't like calling left-wing Republicans "RINO"s, but that's the term used by Republicans to describe them.

[David Nieporent]

Bush was an exercise in ticket balancing to placate moderates, as well as, of course, to appeal to independents. Not "RINOs."

There are no "left-wing Republicans," and that's a term used only by kooks and loons. Not "Republicans."

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, "moderates" are what Democrats and left wing Republicans called the left wing of the Republican party. In reality, a "moderate" Republican would be in middle of the Republican party, not its left-most fringe.

Both parties have left and right wings, even today, even after the 'great sort'. The Bushes were and are about as left-wing as you get and still bother calling yourself Republican. They frequently even admit to voting Democratic.

[David Nieporent]

You are relying on ambiguity about what the adjectives are comparing the individuals to. The phrase "moderate Republican" could in theory refer to a Republican who is moderate compared to the polity or someone who is moderate compared to the other members of the GOP. But in reality, you are the only one using the word in the second sense. Similarly for "left wing Republican." Normal people use the phrase "left wing" to refer to someone who is on the socialist part of the spectrum — not to refer to someone who is middle of the road but more liberal than other Republicans.

In any case, the Bushes were not and are not "left wing" under either definition of the term — the real one or yours — and do not in fact "frequently even admit to voting Democratic." Not that crossing over from time to time makes one an INO anyway. You are confusing a party with a cult. (An understandable mistake for a Trumpkin.) Even if someone is a liberal, that does not make him a "RINO" (or vice versa for a conservative Democrat).