Third Party & Independents: Archives

I would pose the question, what if the dems hold up in the senate, and filibuster. We would see the nuclear option pop out again quickly. There is no limit to the ambition of this neo-con agenda.
My feeling is they will threaten a horrible one which will then be “withdrawn” as a publicized compermise. This will enabe them to gain more popular support, then, whoops! Nuke is back on the table.

Good article Dave

Vex:

I would pose the question, what if the dems hold up in the senate, and filibuster. We would see the nuclear option pop out again quickly. There is no limit to the ambition of this neo-con agenda

I think that would be hard due to time constraints. With the next session right around the corner, and so many 5-4 decisions the pressure would be incredible for an up and down vote. We shall see!! On the other hand, Presidents have a 80% batting average on getting justices approved.

Craig

Vex, I think Craig may be right. The GOP is not in a position of weakness here, but, the Dem’s. are. If the nominee has even a margin of centrist or moderate or pragmatist in their background, the Dem’s. would do well to not filibuster on O’Connor’s replacement.

If Rehnquist subsequently resigns, the Dem’s would be a much stronger position to block an extremist nominee with general public support having granted O’Connor’s replacement. But, we will have to wait till the middle of this month to see who Bush nominates before doing too much armchair quarterbacking.

The President and members of his administration have had plenty of time to research jurists to whom they would be amenable; a vacancy (or two) has been expected to come up for years. The pool of candidates is large enough that the administration should not have any difficulty finding an applicant it considers suitable.

Moreover, I’m not sure how difficult it will be for the President to find a jurist suitable to both his political and legal philosophies. We already know he seeks a strict constructionist. A strict constructionist rejects the idea of the constitutional right to privacy, and by extension the bases of Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and other cases recognize private, sexual freedoms. Further, a strict constructionist verily rejects the idea that the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment applies to homosexual couples with respect to marriage. These are hot-button moral issues that are extremely important to Bush’s base. In that respect, I don’t think the President’s judicial appointment should cause him much—if really any—political trouble, at least on cultural issues.

Economically, I’d imagine a strict constructionist would be hostile to federal business regulations, which I doubt conflicts with President Bush’s agenda either. Tort reform should act as a limit on the federal courts’ breadth of action, which the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate (within limits). Bush shouldn’t be harmed here, either.

I do recall reading an editorial sometime back, however, that noted conservative presidents have had difficulty getting Roe reversed, which is obviously a central conservative goal. Reagan had a couple of appointees—O’Connor among them—and he was unable to obtain a sufficiently powerful conservative bloc on the Court to reverse Roe. Ironically, I think Reagan intended O’Connor to be an anti-abortion vote on the Court, but her voting record aptly shows otherwise (but don’t quote me on Reagan’s intentions). It was a liberal editorial optimistically asserting the President and his conservative base might have more difficulty reversing Roe and other case law than one might suppose.

On the other hand, it could simply be liberal wishful-thinking.

There are probably so many names on the list of potential nominees for the Court that you could commit suicide jumping off the pile.

I am wondering, if the President can make an appointment (Bolton for example) when the Congress is out of session, can he do the same for a Supreme Court Justice or, is that appointment procedure more complex.

In my humble opinion Bush is holding all the cards.(again).

I expect him to nominate a very conservate male, that isn’t well known to the general public, mid 50’s or younger.
Whomever it is will be attacked by the far left groups. However, they will be attacking someone the public never heard of, and makes the case for the right to prove Dem.’s just block anyone nominated by Bush.
Will the Dem.’s want to fillibuster and risk the “Byrd” option being used?
I don’t think President Bush will back water, and I do think Dem.’s will have to blink.

Now the chief justice retires, move Thomas or Scalia to the top spot, oh.. You want another woman on the court? What 2 female, conservative judges just breezed through the senate? Will the public support a fillibuster of them now?

I think all the blocking and stalling of judges for the past few years is coming back to bite Dem.’s in the butt at the very time they needed to use that tactic. Just my political opinion.

I nominate Alberto Gonzalez. He has the morals, ethics and values of today’s Republican. I am certain he will represent the perfect Conservative Judge.

Just some various polls that seem to back up my opinion that most of the voters want more conservative judges, and Bush is holding all the cards.

http://www.pollingreport.com/Court.htm

Aldous,

I’m quite sure you are joking that you want him on the USSC.
I dont see that happening, he would be taking shots from both sides. Pryer has a better chance than he does, both are unlikely right now IMO.

I doubt Bush would nominate Gonzalez, Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, or any of the other names we’ve heard very recently if only because they just made it through their own very bitter nominatino processes. Politically, I’ll wager it would be advisable just to let those names sit for a while if the President’s considering them Supreme Court picks (which many believe he is). I agree with Beagle that Bush will likely pick someone young, unknown, and conservative, although the fact that he/she’s unknown might be by virtue of the fact they’re serving as (presumably) a justice on a lower court. I don’t think that’s an easy path to national note.

steve smith

According to the Constitution, Bush may make an appointment to the Supreme Court while Congress is in recess that will expire at the end of the next session. I doubt he’ll do that, since other posters here are saying that O’Connor has announced she will remain on the bench until another appointment is confirmed.

Beagle

I’m not sure that polling report completely supports your assertions… I took a quick look at it. While a plurality of participants in the poll would prefer a more conservative justice, a majority would prefer a justice that is either the same as we have now or more liberal. When push comes to shove, I don’t think it’s a jump in logic to suppose the respondants looking for a liberal judge would instead simply look for a continuation of the status quo. In the ABC poll further down the page, a strong plurality claimed to look for a moderate judge, which I suppose isn’t very surprising.

Also, I call attention to the fact that a majority of respondants to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll asserted that the President should provide a nomination acceptable to the Democrats, and that another majority responded that the Democrats should work to defeat a nominee they considered unacceptable.

Nonetheless, the instability of public opinion and the narrow majorities that support the Democrats suggest that orchestrating a filibuster in opposition to a Bush nominee—especially one with whom the public can identify ideologically, should that be the case—would soon become unpopular in the public arena. Let’s see what happens.

Xan my friend,

First let me clarify where the term “my friend” comes from. If you’re an attorney you would know, if not, its a term attorneys us as respect for other attorneys. The term “my new best friend”, also comes from attorneys, but says we agree on issues, neither one says we are likely to share beers together anytime soon…lol.( not saying we couldn’t).
No I’m not an attorney( that is obvious), but I have many friends that are.

On the polls, most every one show that most think the courts are too liberal, the rest depends on how the questions are framed.

That was my point, and what my political opinion was based on. I could be wrong.

An opening on the Supreme Court is no surprise. Vetting, decisions, and coordination between Bush & Senators should have already happened. This is a simple matter of political competence.

The question is how the Bush administration will approach this. If they’re smart, & consulted with Republican & Democrat leaders, the decision has already been made, the deal has already been done.

If Bush prefers to be a divider rather than a uniter, if he prefers a confrontational approach, it would be disastrous for the confirmation process, and hurt the country as a whole.

Personally, I’d be willing to give the administration credit, and figure this will go through easily, despite the noise from the fringes of the left & right. Let’s hope Bush has done his homework.

Just to put another perspective in the pile…

First, I’m sure all of you noticed that the NYT ran an article today about how the GOP juggernaut might be showing some cracks about the possible appointment of Gonzales? Dare we (libs) dream that the pan-Republican alliance of evil is showing some signs of wear?

I don’t furnish links, since I’m a computer dunce.

Also, I’m not one overly given toward optimism, but, historically speaking, there have been giant surprises in the past in terms of how an appointee’s political affiliation and his rulings have not coincided. Nixon appointed Burger, a noted conservative, in the hopes that he would set the clock back on jurisprudence by about 100 years, and was greatly dismayed by many of his decisions, not the least of which were his decision to side with the majority in Roe v. Wade, and his decision on the implementation of busing to combat de facto segregation.

Another example is Eisenhower’s nomination of Earl Warren, who crafted some amazingly progressive decisions (Brown v. Board of Education).

So, all I’m saying is, even if we get a benighted Attila the Hun on the Supreme Court, history left us some room for hope.

All is not lost.

phx8

I think it is good practice to ignore the fringe noises of the left and the right, perhaps especially on this issue. According to factcheck.org, some of those groups starting making rather illegitimate jabs at each other even before O’Connor retired. I think you’re right to set those groups aside and hope like the rest of us that this battle isn’t as nasty as it’s shaping up to be.

On the potential nominees, though, I take some small issue with your suggestion. I don’t expect Bush to meet with members of the Senate before a vacancy takes place; though many have indeed expected a vacancy for quite some time, it might be imprudent to discuss potential nominees with Senators if such a vacancy might not occur for months or years. I feel that way simply because the administration’s appraisal of the pool from which it will select its candidates is changing over time. Aptly, President Bush has said he intends to meet with members of both parties in the Senate before sending it a nominee. I suppose we can take that for what it’s worth. I think we should also note that the administration has likely been preparing for Reinquist to step down, since most predicted that he would be the first. (I say “likely” because such meetings are conducted in secret.) O’Connor’s retirement almost certainly changes their approach, but in ways I myself don’t know.

Ideally, I think the decision won’t take long to make. The President has said he won’t announce a nominee until at least July 8 (when he returns from the G-8 Summit) and Arlen Specter (head of the Senate Judiciary Committee) has said his committee will be ready for debate on a candidate in August, which leaves about couple months until the Supreme Court’s next term begins in October.

That leaves two possibilities that I can see. Either President Bush may nominate a justice the Democrats really don’t like and bet that they’ll break and allow a vote under political pressure, or he’ll save such a nomination for Reinquist’s probable retirement. Beagle might be right in the sense that the polls might not indicate robust American support for the Court as it is, but on the other hand those polls indicate—to me, anyway—a clear expectation that Bush should nominate someone the Democrats find palatable (if not as delightfully liberal as they would consider ideal). There are reasons supporting either approach, but your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps we’ll know the nominee’s name within the week.

unkind K

The sentiment doesn’t surprise me particularly. Conservative elements of the President’s base are definitely hoping for an anti-Roe candidate, and a lot of them aren’t positive Gonzales will deliver on that point. Especially since O’Connor generally supported Roe in her rulings, I have little doubt social conservatives are banking on a strongly anti-Roe candidate.

I doubt that matters terribly though with respect to Gonzales, though; regardless of his guilt or lack thereof in the affair, his role in the administration’s prisoner treatment policy at Guantanamo Bay probably knocked him off of Bush’s short list earlier this year anyway. That should remain the case for the time being. Certainly, though, I could be wrong.

Beagle

I didn’t know “my friend” had that meaning… good to know; I try to learn something new every day. In any case, I’m not seeing your interpretation in my reading of those polls, but then I could very well be missing something myself. I’m apt to do so, but since you provided the link and clarification I’ll certainly take your word for now. Regardless, if the public wants a more conservative justice, one thing is for sure: they’re bound to get one! The only thing that seems really debateable to me is the extent of that conservativism.

Unkind,

What you noticed is this. Republicans consistantly nominate judges who are concerned with the constitution. And that ya’ll have some bad stereotypical images of conservatives.

Clinton nominating an ACLU lawyer for the supreme court was the most extreme you can get. And she didn’t get felayed either. Should be an open door for Bush to pick anyone.

However, I bet you’re still surprised.

Bush will do what is right and pick someone who represents the majority of Americans. That is how he got elected.

Minority party obstruction was only meant for seven specific purposes, as stated in the constitution. It was not meant for judges. Otherwise, you would neeed a 60/40 to approve, when in fact only a simple majority is required.

Bush got elected by waving the Gay Flag.

I expect Bush will choose the one most divisive. He needs the bruhaha to distract the people from Iraq. The greater noise about this, the better.

The gay flag?

Did anyone actually listen to the tape recordings of Bush’s telephone conversations with a supposed “friend”? The guy attempted to bait GW, while taping his responses, to speak badly about gays. During a candid conversation, with what was thought to be a close friend, in what Bush believed was a private conversation. Bush stated over and over that he would not discriminate against gays. Did you not hear that?

If you are gay, you better start paying attention to the world around you. I predict in 50 years you’ll be extinct.

Here’s how.

Now, this all rests on gay agenda’s belief that they are born gay. If they are born gay, then there is a gene for it. If not a gene, there is some discernable aspect that can be identified in the womb.

So, we will be able to identify which fetuses are gay and which are not.

And since I’m assuming, most babies will still come from hetero relationships. Gay babies will be aborted. Maybe not 100% of the time, but probably 99%.

So you keep siding with the side that wants to kill people for their stem cells. Who want to (in the name of science) map the genome and clone people? Clones probably will become the slaves and organ donors of the future. The side that believes death to human life is ok if it might be an inconvenience to someone else.

You keep doing all that and one day there will be no more gays.

Janice Brown ? The high court does need a black woman. And what would be wrong with a hispanic man or woman on the court? In 10 years, there will be more hispanic than blacks in the US, so why not ? A 1/2 million Blacks get aborted every year and 3 million hispanics cross the border every year. That’s a 35 million +/- (hispanics/blacks) over the next 10 years.

You know Scalia or Thomas will be top dawg in a year or two.

Senator Joe Biden said something strange today on CBS.
In and interview about the USSC nominations, ask if something could spark a filibuster, he said someone like Janice Rogers Brown…but didn’t she just pass in the senate?…Biden responded..The USSC is different than the lower courts, “Because the USSC gets to make new laws”??

Does he understand which branch of gov. is supposed to MAKE new laws?

Did he just say, on national TV that the USSC has the right to legislate from the bench?
Or did he only admit that they DO legislate from the bench?

Biden has already said he’s running for Pres. in 08, I’m sure team Hillary is already working on ad’s useing that foolish quote, if not perhaps they are the foolish ones.

I don’t expect anything from the left about that untill the campaign is in full swing.

If those on the right don’t use it now to counter any blocking of judges, perhaps they are also foolish!
DAMN I love politics!

Xan,

“my Friend” before a name means exactly that, a friend. If used AFTER a name, its a term of respect, most often used by attorneys. This is how an elderly attorney explained it to me when I asked.

James

Doubtless, you are correct that Republicans (and, in good fairness, Democrats) nominate jurists concerned with the Constitution. Just look at a bio for each justice (preferably from a non-partisan source; I trust Oyez’s listing). In general, the justices share academic excellence in the field of law, juridical experience both on the bench and as a clerk in various forms, and perhaps large legal projects of some kinds. Ginsburg, as you point out, worked on the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project for some time as a component of her interest in women’s rights. Given that her Senate vote was 96-3, it doesn’t appear as though conservatives in the Senate at the time were too hostile to her background. Moreover, I think an apt example of a jurist rising from a liberal organization to a judgeship is Thurgood Marshall, who rose from the NAACP to a federal judgeship and eventually the Supreme Court.

On Bush’s views on homosexuality, and homosexuality in general… it is an exagerration to say Bush got into office by waving an amorphous “gay flag”. He took a position on an issue important to his social conservative base. He has announced he opposes gay marriage, and has compounded his view with the attempted Federal Marriage Amendment. That’s not waving the “gay flag”; that’s attempting to take a principled position on an issue that matters to a number of people. Though he may certainly be wrong, I think it may go too far to attack his motives, which we can’t know ourselves.

But I doubt your rhetoric soundly contributes to the debate, James. I’m unaware of the tape you mentioned, but I have little doubt Bush tolerates homosexuals. Nonetheless, the implication that homosexuals are some sort of species distinct from the rest of humanity is unhelpful and likely offensive. (The implication arises from the word “extinct”.) Moreover, one’s intention to abort a gay fetus (assuming it will ever be possible to detect homosexuality in the woom, which is certainly debateable) hypothetically rests on the conceptions that A) abortion is not wholly immoral and B) that homosexuality is itself wrong or a “problem” that cannot be “cured”. I don’t like to generalize like this, but the people who believe (A) are not likely to believe (B). But the origins of homosexuality are still a mystery anyway, so this entire point is moot.

My understanding of embryonic stem cell research is that the practice of therapeutic cloning treats human stem cells to grow organs and body parts to replace those lost in individuals. It does not cross into reproductive cloning, which does produce a fully developed individual. I can see you oppose stem cell research on more or less the same basis you oppose abortion and I respect that, but is it fair to claim that this science will produce a scenario like this: “Clones probably will become the slaves and organ donors of the future”? That sounds like heated and unfounded rhetoric to me, unless I am missing important facts in the debate. I’m open to them, so if you could direct me I would appreciate it.

As for diversity on the court, I’ve read an article or two that claims diversity is no longer as relevant as it once was in the make-up of the court. Thoughts?

Beagle

A foolish slip of the tongue on Biden’s part. I can picture partisans in the debate alternately throwing blunt objects at their televisions when they heard that or laughing innanely at him, depending on their political persuasion. Who knows, if he’s lucky he’ll get away with it…

Xan,

Ethnic diversity on the courts?

I agree that it isn’t really much of a factor anymore, or it shouldn’t be. That battle was faught and won(correctly) 40 years ago. Skin tone should never be part of a political debate about issues.
I understand that some still wish to dredge it up as an issue, but its time for everyone to let it go.
Politics is all about votes, if voters accept skin tone or racism as an issue, it will always be used.
Skin tone nolonger is a factor on how someone views the issues, pandering to the few that still cling to that should be rejected by every political group of voters.

Politicians won’t let it go untill voters let it go, most have, everyone should.

July 4th is tommorow, the birth of a nation, it includes everyone reguardless of skin tone, past is past, lets put skintone/racism in the dumpster and celebrate something that started with conflict but evolved into something that ideas matter, but skintone or ethintisity doesn’t!

Excuse my poor spelling and have a wonderful weekend.

Beagle, as long as the KKK is still in our headlines like the surface of a lake reflecting much deeper and less visible perspectives of racial intolerance by much larger numbers of our population, it is a political issue that NEEDS to remain alive and active in order to maintain public vigilence against those who still see a one color American power structure.

It is not advisable to presume that because demonstrations and lynchings no longer fill our headlines, that racism as living political and social reality has gone away. I assure you, it hasn’t. Now that there are laws prohibiting acting on racial intolerance in harmful ways, does not mean millions aren’t out there figuring out ways to get around the laws.

Housing is a perfect example. Near all white communities in America with significant Hispanic and Black work forces do exist in large numbers, and the reason is folks don’t give race as a reason for not selling their home to a buyer of color. They got creative and say things like, I think I already have a buyer, but, thank you anyway. Hard to prove such a case in court, but, it goes on all the time and it is self-evident by white Germanic communities here in Central Texas whose township’s homeowners are almost exclusive white, while their businesses and orchards and ranches and farms are run by large numbers of non-whites.

If the GOP wanted to do this right they’d add a seat or two to the Court while they hold the offices to do so.

I feel that ,the grand standing aside, a prolonged dispute would be wonderful. The more the Democrats and Republicans battle over the nominations the more people will educate themselve about them. More people will pay attention to the nominees stances on important issues. It will encourage more people to view Bush’s agenda more carefully and completely. The more people who pay attention to our government these days the better.

George in SC

FDR tried to pull something not unlike that in the mid-1930s because the Supreme Court was apt to strike down important parts of the New Deal. The stunt backfired; not only did he fail to get the Supreme Court changed, he lost his party a lot of seats in Congress. Moral of the story? Don’t fiddle with the Supreme Court.

Yes, it might help the GOP ideologically to add seats to the Supreme Court for them to fill, but the subsequent blow to their popularity could cost them control of Congress and eventually the presidency. Americans might not like the behavior the Supreme Court, but they really don’t seem to like using it as a political tool.

Andre

It might be nice if more people payed closer attention to the behavior of Congress and the administration, but I doubt this is the way for that to happen. The education one would hope they’d acquire would doubtless come from the extremely noisy fringe groups that hopelessly distort the truth on both sides. Television news media would certainly be no better; an episode of Hardball or Hannity and Colmes might provide pundits and entertain, but it would be mostly froth and little substance. (Anybody read that article in the New York Times Magazine [I think] a while back on the “school of punditry”?)

Also, what would happen if Bush offered a sort of “dark horse” nominee? One who’s completely unexpected and who doesn’t really have a distinctive legal philosophy (and yet who’s had enough experience to be considered)? Curious scenario.

I was pleased to see today’s headlines vindicate my main argument in this article. I said, if a conservative is nominated, conservatives will oppose it. The BBC reports:

Members of conservative groups around the US are rallying to head off the nomination of US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court.

Its flattering having one’s observations born out in headlines just a day or two after writing an article.

James,

Actually, the conservative nominees I mentioned made enormously activist and progressive decisions, ones that most conservatives hate. And these decisions weren’t “concerned with the constitution” in the way that most conservatives prefer, i.e. strict constructionist. I doubt many conservatives today would stand behind those decisions; in fact, the presidents who nominated them were usually pretty incensed by the way their nominees’ jurisprudence came out.

You said:

“Minority party obstruction was only meant for seven specific purposes, as stated in the constitution. It was not meant for judges. Otherwise, you would neeed a 60/40 to approve, when in fact only a simple majority is required.”

I’m actually somewhat intrigued by this argument. I must not have paid enough attention to the filibuster debate in the recent past, because I’m relatively certain it isn’t novel. I’m not sure I buy it yet, and I certainly doubt Republicans, given their lack of scruples in most other circumstances, would be swayed by it if the situation were reversed.

I can think of one instant rejoinder, which is that if Senators were not meant to have the right of filibuster at any time, no matter the majority required for the given vote, they wouldn’t enjoy the nearly unrestricted right of speech and debate. That’s just off the top of my head, though.

Just some interesting aspects of the filibuster debate I didn’t see noted very much…

The Constitution does not explicitly declare anywhere that Congress should conduct business based on the traditional majority-vote standard. The 1892 Supreme Court case U.S. v. Ballin is often cited as proof that the simple majority vote is the constitutional standard, but this is not the case; the case establishes that absent other standards, the majority vote is the traditional default. If the filibuster creates an artificial super-majority requirement, there is nothing in the Constitution or in Ballin that prohibits it. Additionally, according to Article I, section 5, each house of Congress may set its own rules of procedure—including those governing debate. If the Senate wants to make a cloture vote set at three-fifths of the chamber, it is empowered to do so. Moreover, if the Senate wanted to, it could set its rules such that for an item of business to pass (except for those explicitly defined in the Constitution) a super-majority—say, three-quarters—would be required.

Interestingly, in the nineteenth century only one senator was necessary block a vote. The Whigs tried to pull that in 1837 when Democrats wanted a censure of President Jackson stricken from record. The Whigs whimped out, however, before midnight on the day of debate. The filibuster cropped up a few years later when the Whigs tried to introduce a national bank bill, to which the Democrats were adamently opposed. In this case, the Democrats won out—much to the irritation of renown Senator Henry Clay. The concept of the cloture vote entered Senate rules in 1917, after Republicans successfully obstructed entry into World War I to the immense irritation of President Wilson. The three-fifths requirement was introduced in the 1970s.

I do think the filibuster is constitutional, but I don’t know if it’s an apt or ethical obstructionist tool in a powerful deliberative body like Congress. The majority rule is an intuitive rule and I think it may be simple oversight that led the framers to exclude it from the Constitution, though I certainly lack any proof of that. A lot of things turned out differently than they probably expected; this is one of them.

Happy Independence Day everybody!

For most positions at the highest level there are requirements. For a Supreme Court Justice are there any specific requirements. For example, do you have to have been a Judge before (if so, at what level).

steve smith, I found this at uscourts.gov in answer to your question:

“The Constitution sets forth no specific requirements. However, members of Congress, who typically recommend potential nominees, and the Department of Justice, which reviews nominees’ qualifications, have developed their own informal criteria. “

Thank you David. I was wondering if Bush could (or would dare to) nominate an individual with no Judicial background or experience. That however would appear highly unlikely with the information that you came up with.

I have a lot of confidence that President Bush will go with a clear social conservative as his nominee. He campaigned on this and is likely to follow through.

If the Republicans want a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, then the president should nominate a strong conservative judge to fill Justice O’Connor’s seat. In the event of a Democratic filibuster and subsequent passing of the nuclear option, another conservative judge could fill Justice Rehnquist’s seat when it opens.

I believe that the appointment of a more moderate judge will hurt the Republicans’ chance of successfully gaining conservative seats on the Supreme Court.

Bowing to threats of Democrats, who are fearful of losing their liberal majority in another branch of the federal government, will only weaken the Republicans’ position.

David,

Once again, I have to respectfully disagree.

It has become very apparent that we see the current political landscape very differently. You believe the Bush White House’s championing of the Evangelical Right’s social Conservative agenda continues unabated. While, I believe the ramifications of the Schiavo mess and the political failure of the aborted ‘nuclear option’, prove nothing could be further from the truth.

I’m confident that Bush will nominate a Conservative to replace O’Connor. But, that candidate will not spark the kind of showdown many are breathlessly predicting.

I’ll make my argument in a WB post shortly.

Bert, No, I believe Bush’s allegiance to the FREC’s remains unchanged. And that is all that it will take regardless of what the rest of the GOP have to say.

On the other hand, Bush is making noises as if to keep his option of Gonazalez open. We will have to wait and see.