Replies

Well, I think we're going to be disappointed there. The few who've been discussed as appellate nominees or potential SCOTUS nominees have been pro-abortion, pro-Roe RiNO's.

I beg to differ. Alberto Gonzalez is what I would call a "stealth" pro-lifer. J. Michael Luttig is a pro-lifer -- there's nothing "stealth" about him. And even the name of John Ashcroft has been mentioned.

Imagine a Supreme Court four years from now with John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor retired -- and replaced by Gonzalez, Luttig and Ashcroft. Goodbye Roe v. Wade, and good riddance.

Pleasant thoughts, but I don't know anything about Judge Luttig. Another appointment Bush made was definitely a pro-abortion RiNO, but it was iirc a lower court -- the nominee being examined by the talking-head circuit more as a straw in the wind, about what kind of people Bush might be nominating to SCOTUS later.

Ashcroft I don't think has the heaviosity, although he's been a prosecutor. One usually has to nominate either a judge to SCOTUS, or an ex-President. Which brings me to the wild-card possibility, that Dubya might nominate his daddy to the High Court. After all, President Taft wound up on the Supreme Court.

And Bush Senior is the original, wild-and-woolly RiNO. He was a RiNO before the acronym RiNO was invented -- a Rockefeller Republican, Skull and Bones, you name it. The liberals would love him, he'd be confirmed by acclamation. Remember, you heard it hear first. "In the dark!"