I find myself wondering if this is his way to put Bush in a position where he has to replace O'Connor with a more conservative justice than he would have if he had two openings.

If Rhenquist left, Bush could elevate Breyer and appoint the moderate female hispanic that he wants to, then appoint a conservative to replace Breyer.

I was glad to see this news today... I am one who does not like change; I definitely wouldn't mind if Ginsburg or Breyer or Souter or Stevens were to go.

Well, actually, at the moment, I might. Because a second vacancy would allow Bush to wiggle out of his Republican duty to appoint only "strict constructionists" to the Court (i.e. - justices who believe in adhering to the letter of the law, and abiding by the Constitution, rather than inserting their own personal views into their decisions, thereby trying to craft federal legislation from the bench). Two vacancies at once would allow him to appoint a constitutionalist-activist duo, and I'm afraid that many of my fellow conservatives and Republicans would swallow and accept this (as they've unfortunately been doing for so many of this administration's other policies). So I'm glad that for now, there is only one vacancy.

What do you think we should do if he nominates Gonzo to bench?

I hope President Bush appoints as extreme a conservative as humanly possible to the supreme court.
But, it seems that when we appoint anyone we may think to be 'conservative' or a 'constitutionalist' they end up ruling liberal.

It is a never ending battle with us conservatives to overturn so many supreme court rulings that make no consitutional sense what so ever. I.E. The due process clause is now GLOBAL? Since when? I thought the U.S. Constitution applies to U.S. Citizens and not every single person on the planet.

Endless list of rulings that need to be overturned because they originally were based in internationalist law.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: