[birbear]

Maybe I'm stuck on stupid, but this seems to me it should be the question we are asking ourselves.

[quidnunc]

Take a look at this, it may answer all your questions:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1499585/posts

[Betaille]

"Why DIDN'T Bush nomiate one of the more popular, well known conservatives to be his Supreme Court nominee?"

Taht's exactly what it comes down to for me. And why I feel it's more than a little arrogant for the RNC'ers to be bashing conservatives as "sexist and elitist" without giving us sufficient reasoning behind this.

[Cedric]

W does not have 51 reliably Conservative votes in the Senate, so he out-foxed everyone by nominating HM. It's a master storke!

[inquest]

That question has been asked around here, and the answer seems to be that he did it to avoid a fight with the Dems. I'm sure he's thinking that his own base is much easier to deal with, because they (supposedly) have no place else to run to.

[dighton]

IMHO, the best take so far is Thomas Sowell's.

[NittanyLion]

He's afraid of a fight.

The only question is whether it was the Dems or RINOs that caused the most trepidation.

[airborne]

Maybe I'm stuck on stupid,

Maybe. I know I'm tired of the whole thing.

When do the hearings start? Let's get on with it already.

[Afronaut]

So he can pass the Amnesty bill.

[Jim_Curtis]

Bush didn't nominate Scalia to Chief even though there was nothing to lose...even if rejected, Scalia would return as associate justice and it would be one strike against the Democrats which would have taken the wind out of the liberals to reject the next nominee.

He wanted to create an atmosphere of weakness where he thought he could get away with with his weak selection.

[speekinout]

Possible answers:

1) The candidates you like might not want to go through the scrutiny they would get. IOW, they declined the offer.

2) Some candidates were not very well known to GWB. They could turn out to be another Souter. He wants to avoid that if at all possible.

3) Meirs just might be a great candidate.

[jess35]

Why DIDN'T Bush nomiate one of the more popular, well known conservatives to be his Supreme Court nominee?

Perhaps because he doesn't give them or the Senate the same level of trust that you do?

[samtheman]

The other day I heard John (The Traitor) McCain carefully explain why he thought it was important that another ream of imflammatory Abu Graib photos be released to the press, even if it meant putting American soldiers in danger. This scum-bag traitor doesn't care about the lives of American soldiers and thinks it's IMPORTANT that we see yet another round of pictures that make the rest of us yawn and make the islamofascist thirsty for more American soldier blood.

And I bet all the other stinking filthy traitor scum-bag RINO's in the Senate agree with John (The Traitor) McCain.

And THAT'S what Bush is up against.

51 Republican Senators?

43 actual conservatives?

or is it 40?

[Mister Baredog]

Why DIDN'T Bush nominate one of the more popular, well known conservatives to be his Supreme Court nominee?

Because the U.S. Senate is comprised of very mean DUmbocRATs who have laid in wait to Bork anyone on that list, and weak kneed Republicans.

If that wasn't enough the weak Republicans have allowed the minority party to filibuster judges.

This is not only against the constitution, but senate decorum.

The Reps know this has been a deliberate strategy to keep conservatives out of the courts,BUT when the showdown came they BLINKED.

Good Lord they even have the President checking with a bunch of them before he nominates anyone under the guise of "advise and consent".

TOTAL BS, but it's Bush's reality, he has to deal with it.

[alnick]

Simple answer: We don't have the votes to break the inevitable filibuster.

[Cboldt]

Go along, get along. Conflict avoidance, where the only conflict he perceived was the inside the beltway one. He figures any resulting loss of conservative support is tolerable. Maybe he overestimated the mileage per gallon of "trust me."

The pick is unprincipled, IMO, because it ratifies the gang of 14 and undermines the power of the Office of the President v. the Senate.

[Mount Athos]

I also agree that Thomas Sowell had the best take on this.

[Siena Dreaming]

When's the last time a Supreme Court judge was nominated out of popularity?

I don't think the SC is usually picked because the public knows them well or they are popular.

I think for some reason this time conservatives had a "short list" and thought the President would pick from it. The usual procedure is that it's the other way around.

[i_dont_chat]

My opinion why he didn't nominate a person who would cause a "fight".

Because the President is a leader and has the best interest of our Country in mind -- when he decided it better to avoid a fight, with all of the mean-spirited questions, etc., which would have taken place with some of the other persons he could have nominated.

I notice it is a trend for fellow conservatives to want to "get down and dirty" and have a real cat-fight with our liberal enemies.

Let's not forget who our REAL enemy is. Our fellow countrymen are not our real enemy. They are our political foes, but what do we gain by beating up on our countrymen.

President Bush is acting presidential, while some of us here in FR are acting no better than our political foes.

[Lexinom]

Here's my theory.

Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter were all "well-known conservatives" and all jurists. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. From the pool of jurists, it's pretty much a crapshoot.

[lonestar67]

There are several reasons. Their names are:

Voinovich
Specter
DeWine
Snowe
. . .

In short, the senate though nominally Republican is not actually conservative and will happily melt in the face of partisan pressure. Head Democrat Reid -- who actually runs the senate-- said okay to Mier so RINOs will also say okay.

Its pretty simple.