[Satadru]

My facts and thinking have been straight. It is you who constantly gets fooled by stupid propaganda. First of all, no one knows whether the list that you posted is true or not. It is a mere speculation of who might get nominated. The only person I can think of who might make it from that list is Garza. I am speculating that because he is from TX, and a minority. BTW, that list is missing Richard Epstein.

I heard in the debates when Bush mispronounced Scalia's name several times, but I got what he was trying to say. But, he also said that he will not sign CFR, cut down on federal spending, and will put principles over politics. Bush has lost my trust and I simply wouldn't believe anything he says anymore. I will not be surprised if he nominates another Souter.

[Reagan Man]

First things first. It's clear you didn't have your facts straight and you didn't follow the flow of our discussion. You're always getting off topic and using inflammatory rhetoric, not just to make your points, but also to insult people. Cut the crap.

Also, I ever said, the list I supplied was anything more the a guide, of the most logical choices for Bush to pick from. Many of the most cosnervative names listed, have been mentioned at one time or another by people close to the President. If Bush has said, Scalia and Thomas are his ideal SC justices, then it is fair to say, he would choose highly conservative jurists for nomination.

Face it, Bush never had your trust to start with. Most polls, show Bush receiving overwhelming support from the American people and that includes most Republicans and the vast majority of conservatives. So you can presume and assume all you want. Makes no difference to me. Just get your facts straight and keep them straight.