[kittymyrib]

Why in the world should Pres. Bush nominate a "moderate" when Bill Clinton gave us Ruth Bader Ginsberg, an ACLU lawyer, and David Breyer, both of whom have voted liberal on every issue tried before them? If Bill Clinton gave the court two liberals, then it's only fair that W gives his voters two conservatives, REAL conservatives.
The squishy "moderate conservatives" always become liberal as they age. There has never been a liberal appointed who has become more conservative over time.

[Bush gal in LA]

That's was a great point you made about moderates only turning more liberal with age. Did you know that Ginsberg also sailed through the process with a vote of, I think 92 to NOTHING? I don't think there one vote against her. And coming from the ACLU is about as liberal as it gets. I wonder if we'll get the same treatment when president Bush appoints a conservative? HHhmmmm

[CHARLITE]

"The squishy "moderate conservatives" always become liberal as they age."

Exactly, Kitty.......and I like the way in which Sowell "dissects" Anthony Kennedy with regard to the sad "transformation" which happens with weak "moderate" conservatives.

I have my fingers crossed that George W. Bush isn't going to make another "Anthony Kennedy" mistake in a possible effort to appease the vocal leftists on the Hill.

Char :)

[ChicagoHebrew]

There has never been a liberal appointed who has become more conservative over time.

There was one: Byron White.

[itsahoot]

Why in the world should Pres. Bush nominate a "moderate" when Bill Clinton gave us Ruth Bader Ginsberg, an ACLU lawyer, and David Breyer,

Look to our esteemed RINO Orrin Hatch for this one, they were his recommendation to Klinton.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Then there are the judicial candidates with a "conservative" label but who lack the toughness and integrity to stand up to all the pressures and temptations to go along with ideas that will win praise in the media and among the law school elites who favor liberal judicial activism.

O’Sullivan’s First Law states that "All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing." And that goes for individual justices of SCotUS.

And although O'Sullivan himself gives some examples as a lame "proof," his law is demonstrably true. My proof follows:

1. Journalism is negative (if it bleeds, it leads)
2. Journalism is superficial (because of deadline pressure)
3. Journalism is arrogant (in claiming the virtue of objectivity, and also in its believe that "you never get into an argument with someone who buys ink by the truckload."
4. Journalism is cowardly (in that each journalist fears all the others - applying you never get into an argument with someone who buys ink by the truckload" to themselves as relates to journalism in general
5. It follows that journalism is cynical and bullying.
6. It follows that any organization which is courageous and principled will be labeled "right wing" - and all others will be pulled to the left by the flattery and derision of journalism.