Replies

You're voting against a highly qualified man for purly partisan reasons ... and you'll vote against this nominee, no matter WHO it is.
------
Exactly. Bush is just stroking the radical leftists like slobbering Chuckie...he is just going through the motions of "consultation" so that the professional whining libs cannot say he didn't.

Bipartisanship for the SCOTUS? Who is kidding who?

CORRECT. I loved this part of the article too:

On Wednesday, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, and Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, sent Mr. Bush a letter urging him not to name to the court any of the three judges who were part of the compromise - Judge William J. Pryor Jr. and Judges Owen and Brown.

Yeah, RIGHT. Reid, you're voting against Roberts, someone who is imminently qualified to be judge. So, SHUT UP. Leahy, thank you for voting for Roberts ... but you're only doing so so that it appears you have a bit of credibility on this next nominee when you vote her/him down regardless of how qualified he happens to be. Why you would care about appearing to have some kind of credibility, I don't know ... most of your Democrat co-criminals in the Senate don't care how they look to the People, so long as their constituency (the ACLU, etc. ad nauseum) are happy.In short, Leahy, why don't you just shut up too??

Frankly, Reid and Leahy's letter should factor in heavily in moving Owen or Brown to the very TOP of the list. Bush could flick a coin -- heads, Brown, tails Owen, and be done with it. Hell ... he could bring both out to the Rose Garden and do that in front of the media ... with the two of them standing there!!!!! :) hehehehe

Bring it on, DemoCRAPS. Nuke option time ... and the President is at DEFCON 1.

No way Miers. Just a Clement front. If W is true to his campaign it will certainly be Luttig---and my checks to the DNC will recommence.

I'll be Ok with Jones or Owens and will party hard if its Brown