[WOSG]

"She will not lead us into ideological battle ala Patton; there will be no order to "fix bayonets boys we are going over the top." On the other hand she will most likely in an unobtrusive - unless a prowling intellectually audacious conservative lurks somewhere in her - and tidy manner deliver votes indistinguishable from those penned by Thomas and Scalia."

We don't know that! We dont know how she will vote, because she is a complete unknown judicially - because she hasn't been on the bench. How can you know she won't be another Kennedy, O'Connor, or Souter?

[Dog Gone]

How do you know she won't be another Rehnquist? His first judicial opinion was written from the US Supreme Court.

Bush knows her well. He knows her better than he could possibly know any other potential candidate.

And he describes her as a pitbull in size 6 shoes.

[sinkspur]

Anybody who would certainly have voted as Scalia does would have never gotten out of committee, especially if they opposed Roe v. Wade.

Politics is the art of the possible.

[frogjerk]

We dont know how she will vote, because she is a complete unknown judicially - because she hasn't been on the bench. How can you know she won't be another Kennedy, O'Connor, or Souter?

How do you know she wont be another Rehnquist because he was never on the bench either?

[sphinx]

We dont know how she will vote, because she is a complete unknown judicially - because she hasn't been on the bench. How can you know she won't be another Kennedy, O'Connor, or Souter?

We don't. However, Bush's record on judicial picks has been pretty good, and he's known her for a long time and in a context in which he is likely to have had open conversations. I suspect he knows what he's doing. That said, I hope we get more reassurance in the coming days. Unlike some who have already panicked, I am prepared to listen.

The most hopeful thing I've heard about her so far is that she attends a conservative, evangelical church. That's not a place pro-aborts usually hang out. I'll be watching for more background.

[MNJohnnie]

We don't know that! We dont know how she will vote, because she is a complete unknown judicially - because she hasn't been on the bench. How can you know she won't be another Kennedy, O'Connor, or Souter

How are all you so certain she WILL be????? Maybe we should can the panic and wait and see what comes out about her? She is just getting into the process, she is NOT the next SC Justice yet.

[MJY1288]

We also don't know how Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown would vote once on the SCOTUS. Many conserv atives doubted Clarence Thomas also

[Apercu]

How do you know she won't be a Rehnquist - he never served a day as a Judge before his appointment. You either trust the President as a man of his word or you don't.

[An Old Marine]

Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter were on the bench and look how that turned out.

Although not my choice for SCOTUS we have to back Bush's play for several reasons. Here are two.

First we have to trust that Bush is a man of his word on the Supreme Court issue. Either he knows her and believes in her or he deliberately stabbed us in the back. Take your pick. If we cut hom off at the ankles now he's finished as President. The '06 elections will probably go badly and we'll have to try to recover in '08 which will be tough enough as it is.

We hired Bush we have to back his play whether its the one we like or not.