[T.Smith]

"In the coming days, it will become known that she is extremely pro-life. I am getting this information from decent sources. She has been actively involved in church, including working as a Sunday School teacher and doing missions work."

I say this as a Christian...So what? She isn't being nominated for Dean of a seminary. She is being nominated for the Supreme Court. While Godliness is virtue in all things, what is most important here is that she be a scholar and a constructionist. If all she has to offer is that she is a Christian Lawyer, then she is a bad pick.

Bush's nominees need to be constitutional scholars and constructionists first and foremost. They should be Christians as a bonus. Besides, Bush did not select her for any of the reasons you are favoring her. He selected her out of cronyism. She has been a loyal supporter and he wants to reward her. Will is correct, Bush is using the Supreme Court as a play thing.

I do not respect George W. Bush.

[Black Tooth]

I say this as a Christian...So what? She isn't being nominated for Dean of a seminary. She is being nominated for the Supreme Court.

Best post of the thread!

So far.

[Not A Snowbird]

Besides, Bush did not select her for any of the reasons you are favoring her. He selected her out of cronyism.

I find it really amusing (NOT) that so many people on this board presume to know what President Bush is thinking and why he does what he does.

That's pretty arrogant.

[sinkspur]

Bush's nominees need to be constitutional scholars and constructionists first and foremost.

Oh, please. Clarence Thomas is far from a "constitutional scholar," yet he is held up as an ideal around here.

Let's remember that Thomas was an unknown in 1991, and that he was also labelled a "second tier" choice by even some conservatives.

[DLfromthedesert]

Oh... are you the President's psychologist? Then maybe you'll replace Dr. Carmona as Surgeon General.

PUH_LEEZE!! You can disagree without accusing the president of such base motives.