[mowkeka]

Before we rush to conclusions, this isn't necessarily a bad deal.
When you think about it, Bush can nominate ANY of the judges that have been passed so far, to the Supreme Court. Democrats can't say they are "extrodinary" cirumstances because they were already passed.

[goldstategop]

They'll vote against them and maintain they're not really extreme all at all. Lyin' Rats.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[BobL]

" Democrats can't say they are "extrodinary" cirumstances because they were already passed."

I thought about that also. Bush can try, but the Dems still get the final word. After all they can say something like: "No she's not an extremist at the appellate level, but she would be at the Supreme Court level." And then there isn't a thing we could do.

Believe it or not, I've also been trying to find a silver lining to this deal, but it keeps coming back to the fact that the Dems can still filibuster at will, and we cannot stop them, for the next 20 months (if not longer).

It really looks like they will be able to ride out Bush's second term without losing control of the courts - an amazing feat, given their minority status all through Washington.

[Unam Sanctam]

When you think about it, Bush can nominate ANY of the judges that have been passed so far, to the Supreme Court. Democrats can't say they are "extrodinary" cirumstances because they were already passed.

This is only in a world where logic and consistency rule -- and that is not Democratic politics!

[Truth Table]

When you think about it, Bush can nominate ANY of the judges that have been passed so far, to the Supreme Court. Democrats can't say they are "extrodinary" cirumstances because they were already passed.

When I think about it, I see a JRB filibuster being played by the donks if she is nominated to SCOTUS. Why? Well, SCOTUS makes different rulings as to what the law means, than does appeals. Because an originalist is not going to make law from the bench, and JRB is an originalist, the donks will say that putting her in the position to sit on the SCOTUS is extream, and the filibuster is justified. The RINOS, if bound by their pledge, are powerless to vote for the constitutionl option until the 106th. Nothing good will come of this. Nothing.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Except that some of the republicans have argued for these nominees precisely because they have promised to follow Supreme Court precidents.

That isn't a good sign when your own party is saying the nominee is OK only because the Supreme Court will control them. And that argument doesn't work for a Supreme Court nominee.

But this deal doesn't matter for that, because the seven republicans (or at least 6 of them) were not likely to vote for an actively anti-Roe Supreme Court candidate anyway.