Personally I don't think too much of people turning on Bush who has a solid Judicial record without actionable cause. But that's just me.
Personally I'm curious why Bush is the primary target, rather than the seven that have been proven to stab us in the back.
I'm also wondering about a conservative movement that holds no appreciation for a "rehnquist". I favor a Thomas, someone that will question and possibly reverse prior decisions, but Rehnquist has been solid for decades. If O'Connor and Kennedy had behaved similiarly we wouldn't have half the difficulties we do today.
Soul Seeker ROCKS!
"Personally I don't think too much of people turning on Bush who has a solid Judicial record without actionable cause. But that's just me."
I have my reasons. For example, maybe Bush will appoint Elton John, or Elton John's boyfriend.
"Personally I'm curious why Bush is the primary target, rather than the seven that have been proven to stab us in the back."
If Bush picks a good one, then I'd expect those seven to get allergic. I hope he's more concerned about public pressure than that idiot senate.
"I'm also wondering about a conservative movement that holds no appreciation for a "rehnquist"."
Rehnquist publicly said he's opposed to impeachment. He's not even a Constitutionalist. And that belief of his, that he knows more than the Founding Fathers, was the reason why no witnesses appeared at the Impeachment Trial, why the Clintons were able to get away with Chinagate, and why Betty Currie's brother died without a single valid report about the timing of his death AND the beating. Renhquist failed his country and allowed the senate to speak out of turn and run the show.
"I favor a Thomas, someone that will question and possibly reverse prior decisions, but Rehnquist has been solid for decades."
I agree that there are worse candidates than Rehnquist. But he should have been removed from the bench. He was supposed to PRESIDE over the trial. Not be window dressing.