Replies

I just want a Pro-Lifer, in their 40s if possible, a veteran if possible, a Pro-Lifer, oh I said that.

Please don't take this wrong. But I think you're setting yourself up for another brawl over the next nominee. Follow me here before you throw something at me.

I think ideologically the president agrees with you. Overturn Roe, property rights, quotas, etc. But he has a different view of the role of the president. He's never taken an ideological posture, except when he steps into campaign mode. As PRESIDENT, he focuses on the constitutional role of the president. He views the court the same way. Note his total emphasis on "originalist" philosophy and a judge who won't legislate from the bench. I think Bush believes a justice who is grounded in the constitution WILL overturn Roe...but on constituional grounds, NOT idealogical grounds. Having watched him carefully, he believes a true LEGAL conservative will automatically benefit the conservative POLITICAL agenda. But he's not going to put the political agenda up front...it's not in keeping with his view of the presidency.

Conservatives were outraged when Schumer declared that Dems would consider "ideology" on judicial nominees. We said religious beliefs shouldn't be a test. We believe a nominee shouldn't be required to state how he/she will decide on issues likely to come before the court.

Our side violated every one of those supposed principles in this fight. It weakens us in future battles. That's why I think Bush will once again (like Roberts and Miers) focus on the LEGAL philosophy of the nominee. But this time, he'll pick a stronger, better known person...I think McConnel or Luttig, or maybe even Ted Olsen.

Yes, it will turn into an "ideological" battle. But you will only hear Bush address the legal considerations.

I think ideologically the president agrees with you. Overturn Roe, property rights, quotas, etc. But he has a different view of the role of the president. He's never taken an ideological posture, except when he steps into campaign mode.

There's nothing "ideological" about applying the Constitution for what it says, not for what somebody wants it to say. That's simply a judges job. The courts have taken us so far away from that that it's enabled the libs to call anyone "ideological" who wants judges to simply to do the job they're supposed to do. Please don't give ammunition to their propaganda.

You think it will be another woman?

Our side violated every one of those supposed principles in this fight. It weakens us in future battles. That's why I think Bush will once again (like Roberts and Miers) focus on the LEGAL philosophy of the nominee. But this time, he'll pick a stronger, better known person...I think McConnel or Luttig, or maybe even Ted Olsen.

I disagree. She was just NOT a good pick. Not from an ideological standpoint, or a political standpoint, or a legal standpoint, or any other standpoint you want to suggest.

And if you think that many disagreed with this pick because of an ideological standpoint, you missed the point. WE did not want a candidate that would AGREE with us ideologically. We wanted a candidate that would have a strong history of standing up for the Constitution. She does NOT have this history.

Like Rush continues to say, "This need not have happened."