Replies

This is where I respectfully disagree. Yes, nominating a Scalia today would NOT be a cake walk. It would be a fight. But it makes no sense give up before you even start.

Bush should have nominated a Real in-your-face conservative and fought. And if he lost - and 6 Republicans and all the Red state Democrats voted against - fine, at least we would know who to retaliate against.

In fact, even if someone like Edith Jones or Janice Brown had been voted down, Bush could have just nominated someone just as conservative, and kept on fighting.

55 Republicans were good enough to get Scalia confirmed. It should be good enough today. We hold all the cards. The presidency and 55 senators. If not now, when?

nominating a Scalia today would NOT be a cake walk. It would be a fight. But it makes no sense give up before you even start.

Bush should have nominated a Real in-your-face conservative and fought.

Let's review a bit. In 2001 Republicans "controlled" the Senate with a 50¹2 - 50 margin. Tie vote, with VP Cheney casting the tiebreaker. In 2002 Democrats controlled the Senate with Republicans holding only 49 votes, having lost Jumpin' Jim Jeffords. In '03 the Republicans had the majority back, and in '05 they have a 55-44 position.
Nominaly that's quite strong, but it includes the "Maverick John Seven" and that doesn't even include Arlen Spector. The reason the Republicans have the numbers they do is that President Bush has gone to bat for those candidates, in his own way - including supporting Snarlin' Arlen.
President Bush has a war to fight in Iraq, and he needs the Senate to act on some things for that. Bush has gone to school on what happened to GHW Bush, and (undoubtedly ruefully) on what Jeffords did to him. Bush has put forward very good judicial candidates; his heart is in the right place and he knows that SCOTUS nominations don't grow on trees - tho in his case they actually just might; he will probably have to defend the Rehnquist seat and he could have the opportunity to replace Ginsberg and one other (Stevens?). Statistically you might think that SCOTUS justices wouldn't sit for more than 24 years, so a two-term president should be expected to have three nominations, give or take. In Bush's case it might - with 3 years to go - be "give."
Bush is an aggressive former fighter pilot who fights for what he thinks he can get, but he isn't rash. And we only have one POTUS at a time. Reagan was the best president of the twentieth century and he had only one Scalia get to the bench in three tries.
Let's get serious. Do you actually suppose that you - that Ann Coulter for that matter - are actually more radical in your constitutional theory than I am? I think - in fact I am quite certain - that the FCC is unconstitutional and that we shouldn't have broadcasting because it censors the many to give clear channels to the few. And that McCain-Feingold is nowhere near constitutional and should have never been adopted by Congress, never signed by President Bush, and never approved by a single justice of SCOTUS. I not only want nine Scalias, I want nine Clarence Thomases on the court who would understand me when I say that the flattery and derision of journalism should not be permitted to influence judges.
Because that is exactly what has been going on.