9mmsnoopy: oh, ye of little faith.
Let's take a look at what's happened over the last couple of months.
Bush wanted Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor. Schumer, Kennedy & Co. said no.
Frist (no doubt with the encouragement of the White House) threatened an end to filibusters. The Dem's caved eventually, but left themselves an opening. What was it, "unusual circumstances," or some such nonsense?
Anyway, GW has carved out his legacy: 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq (like it or not). I don't think he has anything to lose in pushing for a real conservative. If anything, it will help his legacy.
Both sides are now claiming that they do not want "activist" judges. I just listened to Patricia Ireland (formerly head of NOW) describe an activist judge as one who would roll back Roe v. Wade. Interesting phraseology on her part.
On our side, we have many groups pushing for real constructionists. And the Republicans have the numbers to do it, if they're willing to go "nuclear."
GW, Rove, Frist and the others have to get the spine to play hardball. The replacement of O'Connor won't change the conservative/liberal makeup of the court that much (at least to the extent that O'Connor was a weathervane), but it will pave the way.
I'm getting good feelings about this.
Let's take a look at what's happened over the last couple of months.
Bush wanted Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor. Schumer, Kennedy & Co. said no.
Frist (no doubt with the encouragement of the White House) threatened an end to filibusters. The Dem's caved eventually, but left themselves an opening. What was it, "unusual circumstances," or some such nonsense?
Anyway, GW has carved out his legacy: 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq (like it or not). I don't think he has anything to lose in pushing for a real conservative. If anything, it will help his legacy.
Both sides are now claiming that they do not want "activist" judges. I just listened to Patricia Ireland (formerly head of NOW) describe an activist judge as one who would roll back Roe v. Wade. Interesting phraseology on her part.
On our side, we have many groups pushing for real constructionists. And the Republicans have the numbers to do it, if they're willing to go "nuclear."
GW, Rove, Frist and the others have to get the spine to play hardball. The replacement of O'Connor won't change the conservative/liberal makeup of the court that much (at least to the extent that O'Connor was a weathervane), but it will pave the way.
I'm getting good feelings about this.