[Howlin]

So the argument that 'we need to get more of 'our' guys in SCOTUS' doesn't fly

Are you totally clueless about what is going on on the SC?

Some of them want to or are close to retirment: it's important to make sure we get the 60 votes needed to make sure we DO get nominees that we agree with on the court.

[stljoe71]

And given that your president signed this bill what in the world would make you think that he would not appoint judges who would support it?

[B Knotts]

Like Souter? Or O'Connor?

See...that's the problem. We can't be sure what these black-robed dictators will do once they're confirmed.

President Bush had a duty to veto this, and he failed to do so. While he deserves credit on other issues, he deserves criticism on this one.

[billbears]

Are you totally clueless about what is going on on the SC?

No I'm not clueless in the least. My point is that SEVEN of the sitting justices were nominated and appointed by Republicans and the Court is still liberal. And your argument is to keep electing them because the new ones will be conservative? Moreso than Reagan nominations?

Some of them want to or are close to retirment: it's important to make sure we get the 60 votes needed to make sure we DO get nominees that we agree with on the court.

I thought 'winning back the Senate' was all we needed last time. Now we need a 'super majority'? Oh joy, who do we get to vote for next time that the RNC tells us is an acceptable 'conservative'?

[Revel]

You should have been fighting against this before Bush ever signed this. Then he might not have signed it, and He, you, and all of us would not be in the position that we are in now. Ever thought about that. We can run away from our principles, but the consequences of doing so will always catch up to us.