Bush has a choice on who to nominate

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He can nominate some terrible extremist like Littig or Alito, or he can nominate the very anti-abortion McConnell. McConnell would be supported by Ted Kennedy, probably because of McConell's objections to the Bush vs. Gore ruling.

If Bush nominates McConnell, he will get approved easily, and will be another anti-Roe vote on the court. However, Bush is interested in stealing elections, so probably wants someone who is pro-Bush vs. Gore.

Face it, social conservatives, stealing elections is more important to Bush than striking down Roe vs. Wade.

[riceowl]

what's the point of making this a separate thread?

I'm for any of those 3, plus Williams Sykes and Jones.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

what's the point of making this a separate thread?

I'm for any of those 3, plus Williams Sykes and Jones.

Rumors are that Bush already narrowed it down to Littig or Alito.

[King]

If I could put a whole thread in my sig...

[Jake]

LOL

You need a break from politics.

[Richard]

what's the point of making this a separate thread?

I'm for any of those 3, plus Williams Sykes and Jones.

Rumors are that Bush already narrowed it down to Littig or Alito.

For once I hope you're right.  LUTTIG!!!!!

[AuH2O]

a) McConnell actually would have gone along with the Bush v. Gore decision. He wrote an article lamenting it was necessary, but that's the extent of his "opposition."

Also... uh.. Bush isn't allowed to run again, is he?

b) McConnell IS acceptable to conservatives. Democrats, however, fought him when he was nominated to the 10th Circuit quite strongly.

c) Because of his confirmability and sometimes-quirky legal philosophy, he is seen as a better replacement for Stevens down the road.