[aBootes]

Bush knows that he will suffer in comparison with his father if neither Roberts nor Miers were to pan out

What this train of thought is missing is a cogent explanation of why I should wager the staffing of the high court on some family's father-son dynamics. It may, in fact, be what I have to do, but given the depth of the constuctionist bench developed over the course of the last few decades, this is apologetics, pure and simple.

[Crush T Velour]

YOU aren't staffing the court. It is not your choice. A lot of conservatives think they are voting for representative on the court. They aren't. The President picks them and he is the only one who does. Don't like it? Run for President.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

What this train of thought is missing is a cogent explanation of why I should wager the staffing of the high court on some family's father-son dynamics. It may, in fact, be what I have to do, but given the depth of the constuctionist bench developed over the course of the last few decades, this is apologetics, pure and simple.

The existence of the Gang of Fourteen - really, of the Republican participants in it - explains why Bush doesn't just nominate a known Scalia rather than trying for an unknown Thomas.

I mention the Bush family dynamics only to suggest that, if he can't do a Scalia, Bush is really motivated to come up with a Thomas. To us, Miers' nomination is a bolt out of the blue; I'm saying that from Bush's perspective it is no such thing.