Sorry, it doesn't wash.
What doesn't wash, that judicial selections live on long after a President is gone and his nominees have been consevative? Maybe you don't like him personally at this point, but I have yet to see any of the angry anti-Bush people give an intelligent response to my point about the courts. They either pretend that doesn't exist, or make false statements about the situation.
One person on another thread assured me that the Dems actually supported all of his nominees because they were all moderates except the four they fillibustered. The Dems were holding up several dozen of his nominees for over a year in committee before the Republicans won back the Senate in 2002. When I asked him for a few examples of who these non-conservative nominees were he gave one person who made a non-conservative ruling on guns. He also assured me nobody would leave the Supreme Court in the next four years, including the 82 year old Stevens. I guess he has a crystal ball. Maybe you have some kind of equally delusional argument.
Are they? What is the evidence to support that? Some are likely conservatives, others probably aren't. Remember how many of his father's nominees and President Reagan's nominees were supposed to be conservatives? Now those people, with a couple of exceptions, are holding up the liberal wing of the court. I don't trust this Republicn court appointment argument. Bush's people are already talking about putting Al Gonzales -- a pro-abort -- on the Supreme Court, because W wants to be the Preisdent who appoints the first Hispanic. Do we know that Bill Pryor is a strict constructionist? His conduct in teh Moore affair suggests otherwise. I would oppose his nomination. Estrada was a good conservative apparently, but of course, he is the one guy who had to withdraw. What do we really know about the other nominees?