Replies

Two comments this AM before work:

1) O'Conner will now hear and decide on the Church&State and Parental Notification cases. I doubt this forum will reach consensus on who might be responsible for whatever results come from that. Great opportunities for SDO'C to write swan-song majority opinions.

2) I do hope this forum combines with the pundits and the next nominee to apply pressure where it belongs, with all the vehemence we have seen for the last few weeks: the Senate. There lies the source of weakness that the President took into account with the Mier's nomination. Already Trent Lott was on screen signalling that 'very conservative' nominees (by name, Owens or Brown) might not be the 'wisest' choices, implying that the constitutional option is not a done deal at all.

I fear that we, (those who opposed Ms Meirs) will get exactly what they have asked for, and will find that their perceived sense of self importance, and power is not nearly what they thought it was in the face of the "wobbly" republicrats in the senate.

Never forget the law of unintended consequences.

Two comments this AM before work:

1) O'Conner will now hear and decide on the Church&State and Parental Notification cases. I doubt this forum will reach consensus on who might be responsible for whatever results come from that. Great opportunities for SDO'C to write swan-song majority opinions.

Time for Roberts to do some jiggering of the court docket :-) For what it's worth, Miers would have likely ruled the same way on the Church&State cases as O'Connor, and possibly the same on the Parental Notification ones.

2) I do hope this forum combines with the pundits and the next nominee to apply pressure where it belongs, with all the vehemence we have seen for the last few weeks: the Senate. There lies the source of weakness that the President took into account with the Mier's nomination. Already Trent Lott was on screen signalling that 'very conservative' nominees (by name, Owens or Brown) might not be the 'wisest' choices, implying that the constitutional option is not a done deal at all.

Why am I not surprised that Cave-A-Lott is caving?

I do hope this forum combines with the pundits and the next nominee to apply pressure where it belongs, with all the vehemence we have seen for the last few weeks: the Senate.

Oh, I think the Republicans in the Senate have been watching this fight with a great deal of attention, and more than a little fearfulness. You could see them looking over their shoulders the past couple of days. They rode into the last midterm on Bush's coattails, due to a very large turnout of social and religious conservatives. Normally the party that controls the White House loses seats in a midterm election. 2002 was almost without precedent.

It could happen again in 2006; but ONLY if Bush nominates a good, strong candidate for the Supreme Court and the Republican senators support it. If not, millions of voters will stay home and the Republicans could lose some or all of their margin in both houses. It's not that the Democrats are wildly popular. It's just that the Republican base would be totally disgusted with them.

This is the acid test. Will Bush nominate a strong candidate, and will the Republicans support him? Nothing else can pull things together again.

Terrifically observant and well said.

I think a hurry-up offense is always risky and it certainly didn't work in this case, partially because the team wasn't really paying attention to the ball, because they got distracted by the uniforms of the other players.

We wanted a fight more than we wanted results. I am just praying that we were not penny wise and pound foolish on this. And we won't be regretting it in a few months.