This indeed seems to be the same modus operandi of the feckless GOP that has wound up compromising conservatism. They and
Of course the cynic in me does NOT believe believe GOP Presidents since Nixon were either ignorant or sloppily uninformed about the choices of Souter/Kennedy/O'Connor, etal., but that they knowingly opted to maintain a "balance" in the SCOTUS.
Why??
CFR, Bilderburgers, Trilateral Commission -- the New World Order (tilting tinfoil hat.)
MEMO TO FREEPERS:
Do NOT look for a Scalia/Thomas model to chosen AT ALL -- this first SC selection was THE selection in which to make it and fight for.
I disagree. If Rehnquist would have been the first resignation, then you're right. You've got to advance the ball, and getting anyone less conservative than Rehnquist would have been a loss.
O'Connor was tougher because you were replacing a moderate, which meant that heels were going to be dug in a lot more because the left wouldn't want to disrupt the "balance" of the court. And while you may say that we should welcome a fight, I don't. Not if we're going to lose. We lost on Bork, then Ginsburg, and the result was Kennedy. I only want a fight if I think I'm going to win. Because otherwise, its about ego and not results. If an Edith Jones nomination gets filibustered successfully, how does that help us?
Roberts is significantly more conservative than O'Connor. Getting him in is a win because a swing vote has become a conservative vote. If he's not Thomas (and he may be), he's miles from O'Connor.