[Travis McGee]

My main problem is that this is the WORST form of croneyism, and beneath the dignity of either the Presidency or the SCOTUS.

How is this different than a king promoting a loyal buddy/vassal to Duke, and awarding him a castle and fiefdom?

SCOTUS positions should not be handed out to loyal vassals who are just buddies of the king.

This is the future of America we're talking about, it's damn serious.

SCOTUS spots are not just trinkets to hand to pals, because you like them.

[Clara Lou]

SCOTUS positions should not be handed out to loyal vassals who are just buddies of the king.
A) What insider information do you have, please tell us, that you know this is what Bush is doing? Or, is this just your idle speculation? [My guess: the latter choice]
B) Your use of the word "king" gives you away.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

We're infested with the same quality minds, that in the other camp, continue to slobber over all things Clinton.

Bush could nominate a steaming pile and we'd hear, Oh, such brilliant strategery!

[vbmoneyspender]

How is this different than a king promoting a loyal buddy/vassal to Duke, and awarding him a castle and fiefdom?

Think Henry II and Thomas a Becket.

[Ramcat]

"My main problem is that this is the WORST form of croneyism, and beneath the dignity of either the Presidency or the SCOTUS."

I think the cronyism argument is valid.
I don't buy the inferior intellect argument.
Can anybody point out to me the intellectual liberal giants on the court?