[Fido969]

Sort of a reverse Roosevelt, you are saying.

I think the only reason not to appoint is if he can't get the appointments through. Otherwise, get our folks in there as soon as possible.

He needs to appoint at least one, maybe 2 women. A female Chief Justice would we a good idea, but take them where we can get them, Bush has been very good at appointing "minorities" to high positions, expect the trend to continue. Getting Ginsberg out of there and replacing her with a strong conservative would be too good to be true.

I also think that there is no way Ginsberg would go to let a conservative be appointed unless she had to go.

[Southack]

"Sort of a reverse Roosevelt, you are saying. I think the only reason not to appoint is if he can't get the appointments through. Otherwise, get our folks in there as soon as possible."

All true, but keep in mind that the MORE conservative our Senate, the more conservative our SCOTUS appointees can be, so there is some small logic in delaying *some* SCOTUS nominations (not for O'Connor or Rehnquist's replacements, of course) until after the GOP adds 3 more net Senate seats in 2006 (because Dems have been fighting President Bush, the Iraq War, Tom DeLay, lower Court appointments, and now SCOTUS appointments...rather than concentrating on their vulnerable Senate seats in 2006 - meaning that they will suffer and lose in the races that count in the following November).

[Southack]

"I also think that there is no way Ginsberg would go to let a conservative be appointed unless she had to go."

Keep in mind that most clueless people on both the far Left and far Right have no *idea* why the Bush's have been buddy-buddy friendly with the Clinton's (i.e. the people who put Ginsberg on the SCOTUS in the first place)...