<p>I wonder who Bush will pick.. any thoughts?</p>
<p>Be warned : a series of personal attacks may start on this thread soon :)
Better not talk about Dubya lol</p>
<p>Yeah I know.. don't you love it!!!</p>
<p>I really want to hear other people's opinions before I say mine</p>
<p>I dont really care who Bush elects. I am still shocked that he won 04!</p>
<p>You and I are so much alike!!</p>
<p>He's ignorant, stupid, a liar, a cheater, a phony...</p>
<p>maybe we should go out :) j/k</p>
<p>I heard that he's thinking of Edith Clement - 5th Circuit judge. That would be a good one - I would be thrilled if he replaced Sandra Day O'Connor with a woman - keep the gender ratio moving in the right direction. She's conservative enough for the GOP, and the Dems would have a hard time filibustering the woman and possibly allowing W to nominate a man instead - that would not look good for them. Strategically, that's the way to go.</p>
<p>I've also heard that he might be thinking of Luttig, which would make sense (very conservative, but could appease the Dems when he allowed a law to be overturned re: partial birth abortion bans) - also, he's from VA, which is conservative but not Deep South.</p>
<p>Edith Clement does seem to be a frontrunner and she was previously appointed by Daddy Bush. Fox news is already starting to spread its progoganda against her, so she must be a pretty decent person.</p>
<p>The interesting if not scary thing about all this is that another vacancy may soon open and Dumbya will have two seats he can fill. Most of the candidates being speculated upon are about 50ish, so we could well be living with his choices for the next 20+ years. I don't know why I get the feeling that Marty McFly is about to tell me that he's sending me back.. and it ain't to the future. 1950's here we come.....................</p>
<p>I would say Edith Clement, and I guess thats the best guess of most political analysts too. She's a good balance (i.e prochoice but pro-capital punishment among other things) and also a woman, so its a relatively safe pick. I'm not sure what the Democratic response will be to her.</p>
<p>Will this be moved to the "Cafe" forum ?</p>
<p>you can't elect a supreme court justice.</p>
<p>and all the speculation was wrong, once again splendid work by the mainstream media <em>rolls eyes</em></p>
<p>I think that he will elect either a woman or a Mexican American/Latino/hispanic. My dad pointed something quite intelligent out- he could appoint the first hispanic to the court (as a male), and then, when Rehnquest retires, appoint a female as the first chief justice. It seems possible. Anyway, may be is female, Hispanic/latino/ect, or perhaps both.</p>
<p>So he chose John Roberts, a white, wealthy, uber-conservative, not to mention young. It's scary that if confirmed, he could potentially serve for 30+ years.</p>
<p>I actually like that he didn't cave to the quota mongers. I'm tired of all the racists and sexists who use the term "white male" in a disparaging way.</p>
<p>Eh, such is life. By the strategy i mentioned before, he would both use and not cave to quotas. Who knows what will happen in the senate, because Sandra was confirmed with conservatives under Clinton.</p>
<p>I think Bush should pick who he thinks is the most capable for the job. There's no point appointing a token minority and/or female just for the sake of having one. If the most capable person is a minority and/or female, more power to them. But I am getting a little irrated that being a white male has taken up a negative connotation among some liberals.</p>
<p>I think you got mixed up. Clinton appointed Ginsburg. O'Connor was nominated by Reagan and comfirmed by a Democratic Senate.</p>
<p>Well, i think about 300 people are equally qualified for the job, really. These people are all quite different, though.</p>
<p>O'Connor was the most politically uniting court appointment recently</p>
<p>I think Bush is going for the muscle-through-the-senate approach.
I don't care. I won't ever need an abortion, since I'm a guy.</p>