Good article, as usual! However, O'Connor did go out on a high note (her eloquent dissent in Kobe).
That said, I bet Bush is going to "have to" nominate a woman for her seat. This is not the way it should be, but it's certainly something the Dems are going to jump on if he doesn't. Fortunately, there are a number of good women (Brown or Owen, anybody?) who are serious conservatives and would be fantastic on the SC.
That's right. President Bush is fortunate that he has at least 2 (and no doubt more) eminently qualified women to appoint. I'm not sure that that was the case (or the reasoning) when Reagan put O'Connor on the high court. I simply can not believe that this particular woman was "the best and the brightest" at that time. Not possible.
Thanks for your comment.....incidentally, the case was "Kelo," not "Kobe!"
Char :)
"That said, I bet Bush is going to "have to" nominate a woman for her seat. This is not the way it should be, but it's certainly something the Dems are going to jump on if he doesn't."
I don't think so. Reid himself has suggested several non-women as potential candidates. The fact that Reid suggested them means we should reject them instantly, but the fact remains that the Dems are on record as supporting men to take over this seat. Besides, most of this country is opposed to affirmative action; no need to compromise with the Dems on that.
Bush is the boss, he doesn't have to appoint anyone. I hold out hope that he won't wimp out, but not a lot.