Replies

Of what value are Bush's excellent selections to lower courts if he screws up and appoints a closet liberal to the Supreme Court, which will continue to overturn decisions made by those very same conservative judges in lower courts, and refuse to revisit decisions made by *liberal* lower courts?

The other issue of not using our "bench strength" also has validity. Bush should have sent a clear message by nominating a known conservative. I don't care if it would take 3-4 nominations to get a real conservative approved-- do it! This sets a precedent that conservatives deserve to nominate conservatives, and see them approved. When Stevens or Ginsburg retires, we want to have the media and liberals *expecting* a hard-core conservative like Luttig or Owens to be nominated to replace them. They need to be shown that the right to govern is won in elections, not by engaging in hysterical rhetoric and media manipulation.

Liberals are *still* the largest voting block on the Supreme Court, with 4 reliable votes (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer-- though Breyer has actually made a few surprisingly conservative decisions in recent years). Kennedy is a "moderate", who has voted liberal on several crucial cases. We've lost Rehnquist, and no one is sure that John Roberts will be as conservative as he was. Therefore, it's crucial that we get another proven conservative on the court.

If Roberts turns out to be a true conservative, we will still only have 3 conservatives on the Court. Kennedy will never be reliable. The slot opened up by O'Connor won't give us a reliable majority even if Miers (or her possible replacement) makes us all happy. But a mistake with Miers' nomination will set us back 15 years.