[reelfoot]

Any nominee should be grilled to see where they stand on the 9th and 10th amendments, the commerce clause, general welfare clause, 2nd amendment, incorporation doctrine, and original intent. If they don't come down on the issues like Clarence Thomas, they should be passed over. We can't tolerate more wishy-washy justices like O'Connor and Kennedy, let alone another Souter-like justice appointed by a Republican. If Bush's primary concern is to appoint someone because of his ethnicity (e.g., Gonzales) rather than his strict constitutional stance, even Republicans should vote against confirmation. It he nominates someone who shares Thomas's outlook and it makes Bush feel good for that person to be a Hispanic, fine. I'm not interested in the race/ethnicity card; I just want a dependable, original-intent justice.

[Dansong]

My biggest fear: Bush, in the spirit of the new-tone, nominates liberals and moderates. Can't anger the Beltway crowd, you know...

[jwalsh07]

Well, you've pretty much described Janice Rogers Brown, my personal favorite, but I suspect the nominee will be either Emilio Garza or Miguel Estrada leaning toward Garza.

[snowsislander]

Any nominee should be grilled to see where they stand on the 9th and 10th amendments, the commerce clause, general welfare clause, 2nd amendment, incorporation doctrine, and original intent. If they don't come down on the issues like Clarence Thomas, they should be passed over.

I would add Kelo as a litmus test. If they cannot manage as strong of a stand on Kelo as Justice Thomas on this issue, then we don't need that justice.

[Seadog Bytes]

How about Bush nominating someone who already has lots of 'confirmation hearing' experience... not to mention his 'strict-constructionist credentials...?

...The Dems are gonna try to filibuster the nominee ANYWAY...  
...Isn't it way PAST time for some 'hardball', Dr. Frist...???!!!