Replies

I see alot of hysteria in the posts that are shamefully similar to the idiotic rants of those beloved libnuts that have been losing elections to us for the last 3 or 4 election cycles.

Well said. Some simple facts regarding this pick are:

A) President Bush said he wants to appoint SC judges in the Scalia mold. I believe he is an honest man, and I take him at his word;

B) President Bush has worked closely with HM for a number of years, and I daresay knows her mind better than any Democrat or pundit;

C) President Bush does not need to choose a nominee just because his/her name is well-known in Conservative circles - it's the results that matter; the steak, if you will, not the sizzle;

D) HM's nomination may be designed to preempt a vicious Senate battle, and while I am just as ready to roll up my sleeves and go get 'em as the next guy, the President may recognize the wisdom of disarming his foes by taking away their most vicious weapon, i.e. their ability to demonize, with the help of a compliant media, any high-profile nominee in the Luttig mold, while at the same time painting the entire administration with an extremist brush.

This has the potential to be a wickedly clever move. It looks moderate and centrist, but (and I hate to beat this word to death) may well be a stealth pick. It may be a Trojan Horse for which the Dems will open the gates, as they misread it to be a peace offering.

One more thing; I think it may be possible to be pro-choice and anti-Roe. Send the matter back to the states, where it belongs.

One more thing; I think it may be possible to be pro-choice and anti-Roe. Send the matter back to the states, where it belongs.

Exactly. Amazingly, even some of my most liberal, "secular humanist" friends (the thoughtful ones) are anti-Roe for the same reason I am. It has nothing to do with the outcome, but rather that Roe got the law wrong, and the Judiciary acted like the Legislative branch.