Well, now Sandra O'Conner is going to get to make so big damn decisions.
Happy now?
That is a down side, but it is still better to get the long-term advantage of a well qualified Associate Justice who will serve for a long time and make lots of big damn decisions, than the alternative.
I hate to say it but O'Connor is a known quantity -- this nominee was an unknown with no judicial experience, a former Indy, who donated to Democrats, and made that speech in 1993.
I will take O'Connor. I have been a loyal Bush supporter but he is not correct 100% of the time and I will not support an action when I think he is wrong. All of us can agree to disagree on an issue.
I am part and parcel of the Oklahoma Conservative Republican grassroots that told the establishment here in Oklahoma NO MORE wishy, washy candidates and we, in turn, elected Dr. Tom Coburn who I couldn't be prouder of since he went to D.C. Dr. Coburn was less than impressed with this nomination -- he is a straight shooter which spoke volumes to me so I waited to get more information -- what I got this week, I sure didn't like.
Yes I am....and I'm not afraid to admit it.
Yes. I'd rather endure O'Connor for a few more months than get a lifetime appointment wrong.
Besides, O'Connor is the justice who wrote the scathing dissent in the property rights case. She is (by far) not wrong on every issue.
Moreover, were it not for Justice O'Connor, Bush might not have won the USSC decision in late 2000. Gore would have been President.
I've not always agreed with Justice O'Connor, but I believe she is an outstanding public servant and brilliant woman. I wish her health and happiness. My deepest regret in this delay is that she needs to get off the bench to assist her ailing husband.