[MikefromOhio]

It is amazing how many even on this forum don't understand this. Even "conservatives" on this forum are swallowing this crap that Alito is a replacement for O'Connor when he actually is replacing Rehnquist.

So why, then, are Robets and O'Connor BOTH on the bench at the same time if O'Connor was replaced by Roberts?

[JeffAtlanta]

So why, then, are Robets and O'Connor BOTH on the bench at the same time if O'Connor was replaced by Roberts?

I think that Don'tTread means that Roberts would have been the replacement for O'Conner if Bush had not switched him to a replacement Rhenquist when he died.

Many feel that it was a mistake as Roberts is probably more conservative than O'Conner but probably less conservative than Rhenquist. Roberts would probably have been an easy confirmation even for O'Conner's seat.

Now, the democrats are now claiming that Roberts is a hardcore conservative so O'Conner's replacement should be more moderate. This is the case that they will try to get to the MSM to broadcast 24/7.

[right-wingin_It]

We're not talking the "techinicals" of who officially replaced who. We're saying that Robert's was intended to replace O'Conner (a moderate for a moderate). But since Rhenquist died, Roberts was bumped over to Rhenquists seat for convenience sake.

You gotta look at the net results. Bush is replacing one moderate and one conservative with one moderate and one conservative -- AND WE SHOULD NOT LET THE MEDIA SPIN IT THE OTHER WAY as if Bush was somehow moving the court to the right!