No Comments

  1. I hate to offer such a radical position, but it really doesn’t matter. for two reasons.
    First, Just because a conservative president nominates (and has confirmed) a judge doesn’t mean that judge will vote conservative. Sadly, seven out of the present nine were appointed by Republicans.
    Second, the ones set to retire are Renquist and O’connor. Both relatively conservative. It would be the equivalent of taking salt out of a recipe and putting salt in its place. If we are to make any progress with the judiciary (not likely, see first point), a judge like Kennedy or Souter would have to step down.
    Sorry to rain on the parade.
    Maybe Bush should nominate me. I don’t have a law degree, so when it came to ruling on a case, I wouldn’t have all those stupid, convaluted legal jargons getting in the way of common sense. Jonathan for Supreme Court Justice!

  2. “the ones set to retire are Renquist and O’connor. Both relatively conservative…”
    We could argue over how conservative O’Connor has been, but it would be fruitless.
    Ever read “The Pelican Brief?” There’s more than one way to appoint judges to the bench.

  3. This really only works if the President were to, on television, with a straight face, present his nomination personally at the Capital building before all of Congress…
    John “Gitmo” Ashcroft.
    Why, there would be no problem with cloture, as half the Jackasses (hey, it IS correct terminology AND its their chosen mascot, how appropriate?) suffer death by apoplexy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.