Replies

I think that's a big cause for concern. In the wake of the Reagan revolution she was a Democrat? That hints to me that her views may have been colored by self interest, and that she saw the Democratic path as better for her in Texas. Will she bend her views to preserve her reputation in the media?

That's also my concern. It could be that she's undergone a transformation, and has genuinely evolved from a Democrat to a Republican due to reasons we'll never know. Or, it could be that she was a Democrat when it helped her career, and became a Republican when that proved to be more expedient. Freed from the need to worry about pleasing a particular master, she could return to whatever her beliefs happen to be.

In the absence of any track record, we just don't know. And since we control the Senate and White House, that's an unnecessary risk in my opinion.

And since we control the Senate and White House,

When it comes to judicial nominees, the GOP does not control the Senate.

The Gang of 14 demonstrated that they control the acceptable ideological range of nominees.

And Bush had to operate within that constraint.

In the absence of any track record, we just don't know. And since we control the Senate and White House, that's an unnecessary risk in my opinion.

That's what I don't get. Why take the risk? If Pres. Bush would have picked a highly qualified judicial conservative maybe the Dems would have filibustered. So what? Frist drops the nuke and it's all over in a few weeks. And the Repub base is ecstactic and ready to turn out in 2006. What would have been the problem?