Redstate

Because the powers-that-be know that I'd have just kicked you straight out the door for that.

And knowing you didn't deserve it wouldn't have even slowed me down.

14-1  Samuel A. Alito

56-1  Janice R. Brown

04-1  Emilio Garza

07-1  J. Michael Luttig

12-1  Michael McConnell

22-1  John G. Roberts

10-1  James Harvie Wilkinson III

A tradition recently begun in England, "Odds making of politics". Let's join in the fun.

500-1: Arlen Specter

1000-1: Lawrence Lessig

9999-1: William Jefferson Clinton

Is anyone Erick Erickson says will get the job.

Edith Jones?  The poor lady was always a bridesmaid and never a bride.  I think it would be great if Bush Jr selected her given that his father passed her up for Souter.

Those are great odds for him. How much? LOLOL...

Think Bush will save Luttig / Roberts for the Rehnquist vacancy.

Don't think the Dems will filibuster this one. They don't want to lose the option altogether, at least not over this seat.

A good nominee will shore up the right wing, but we'll still have only 4 votes. Kennedy will move into the power seat. What's really needed is a replacement for Stephens and/or Ginsburg.

I have a cold, and I'm a bit light-headed today, so I thought it was funny.

Can you imagine how we would feel if it was Algore or JFK (the Frenchman) doing the choosing

Thank the Good Lord for W!!!!!!

Wouldn't those odds be more like 666-1.

...but this is a summer in which Bush REALLY needs to tend to the Base. So if he wants the Honron, go out and grab Brown for the fight to make the Dems shoot their wad early, pop Scalia in for the CJ's chair, then Luttig in for his replacement.

And then, when Ginsburg retires, bring Miguel Estrada back from the dead. In for a penny, in for a pound, I say.

I am an amateur in this area compared to the rest of you here, but John Cornyn in O'Connor's spot strikes me as a good idea. I've lived in Texas since he was AG, and he's always been consistent, and more of the conservative leaning-ilk. I think he would be much more consistently on our side as the swing voter...making 5-4's more regularly go our way. FWIW

your talking about. A Gazillion - 1, might be more accurate for one of them.

Replacing Renquist--If you replace a conservative with a conservative, there's nothing to get worked up over.

But O'Connor was a solid moderate (personally, I thought she'd be a great choice for CJ).  If Bush nominates a hard conservative, that's when the sparks will fly.

90% chance it's Garza

If Dubya decides that he really, really wants to nominate Gonzales, he'll hold off on the Hispanic nominee until a later retirement, one that would definitely shift the Court to the right like Stevens or Ginsberg.  Which means he'd have to replace O'Connor with a woman.  Which means that Owen and Clement both come to mind.

If O'Connor's vote is flipped, then the partial birth abortion bans are reversed.

That's something.

as it is 11:14 and the President may announce the pick. Let's watch...

Great intellect, wisdom, personal decency, etc, etc.

Gracious, Class Act, Probably Meant Every Word

If I recall correctly, O'Connor was the deciding vote to uphold disgusting racial preferences at public institutions a couple years back.  We could see an end to race-based affirmative action at institutions that receive public funding, which would be good for the country.

Sheets Byrd is on the floor of the Senate right now mumbling about how important the Constitution is. Surprise surprise!

I'm going with Garza. If I were Bush, I would announce it as soon as the Senate gavels for the holiday recess. That way he can create a PR push without having to deal with the Kennedys and the Byrds of the Senate claiming that he has no "moral authority" to appoint a conservative, or whatever they're going to try this time.

But a dark horse candidate - Cornyn or possibly one of the women - could certainly be the pick.

I think Luttig or Garza.  I think if it is Garza, that means Gonzales is less likely down the road.

One of the "woman".

Partial-birth Abortion

Affirmative Action

Campaign Finance Reform

Death Penalty restrictions

I don't care if we have to put Estrada through the ringer again. Anything that's going to make sure Gonzales doesn't become Souter 2.0 sounds pretty good to me.

I have nothing against Alberto. I think he seems like a nice and knowledgeable person. I think he's doing a pretty good job as attorney general. I just don't want him on the Supreme Court. He's not reliable. I've had enough of the unreliables.

is that as soon as a replacement is named, we need to have a full court press on the PR front. The first thing the public hears is more than likely what is going to stick in their minds. President Bush will need to be engaged form naming to confirmation, speak daily if necessary. Not letting just the senate Republicans, or outside groups defend the nominee such has been the case up until now.

Could GOV Perry appoint Gonzalez to replace Cornyn in the Senate?  He is a TX citizen, right?

Of course, they don't believe Janice Rogers Brown is a woman or black.

I would rather have a solid conservative coming from TX, no need for KBH2

I know Texans are proud about their state of residency and all, but is there such a thing? :-)

All I know is that his signature is on my sister's law school diploma thingy back when he was on the SC of Texas.

Seems to me if he is really that unacceptable as a judicial nominee*, would his critics be comfortable with him as a United States Senator from Texas if they thought it likely that that they could get someone more conservative?

* I'm not sure if that is indeed the case but that seems to be the CW here are RedState.

From what I have heard, people are mainly worried because he applied SC precedent to a case in TX while on the TX SC that overturned a partial-birth abortion bill there.  I believe he is Catholic and pro-life.  So even if there is a worry that his judicial restraint was too strong, his beliefs may be more conservative (and I suspect they are).  But I haven't researched it enough.

That being said, President Bush obviously wants to reward his loyalty and if the SC is starting to be out of the question, he could make it two Hispanic Senators that he has helped get into office (Martinez being the first).  And doing so in TX and FL where many Hispanic voters reside is probably more helpful in symbolic terms than Dems getting a Menendez in NJ or Salazar in CO.

FWIW, I am not an advocate of identity politics.  But the President is and that is a reality and should be considered when recommending ideas that may make it across his desk.

I'll step out of self-imposed semi-retirement to pose the following: if Bush intends to replace SDO with a conservative (Garza, Luttig, Clement), it seems to me that he needs to get at least 2 of the following 4 senators on board:

1. Warner (R-VA)
   
   
2. DeWine (R-OH)
   
   
3. Graham (R-SC)
   
   
4. Nelson (D-NE)

That scenario would probably go something like this:

a) GWB nominates a "Right-Wing-Extremist-Lunatic" (let's say Clement, for example) to replace SDO

b) Hearings go fine - nothing unusual happens, confirmation should (under normal circumstances) be assured (a la Aunt Ruthie's 96-3 vote)

c) PFAW, Emily's List, NOW and the like go high-order and demand that this "extremist" be filibustered

d) Tara Reid dutifully complies

e) With the first attempt at cloture, Clement gets at least 57-votes (all 55 Republicans with probably 1-2 Demos) - at least 2 members of the Gang of 14<^TM> call "BS"

f) Frist flips Reid The Byrd

g) The Demos implode, Clement is confirmed easily, and life goes on

Until and unless I hear about the WH talking (even if through channels) with the 4 knuckleheads I've listed above, I'm preparing myself to be disappointed with Bush's choice.

OTOH: if it's Cronyn, 1) it would likely be an easy confirmation, 2) it replaces a swing-vote with likely a solid conservative, 3) it un-jams the chain of succession that started to build-up when KBH toyed with running for TC GOV.  I could probably live with that.

Vaya con Carne.

That should be "TX GOV", of course.

Fat finger disease - it's a curse.

Justice Kennedy seems to be coming around :-).  Wouldn't that be the bitterest pill....

As I rethink this, I think this will be the nomination the fight will be over.

Perhaps Edith Jones and Gonzales should be added to the Odds board as they may represent the only 2 that may have a chance without the Senate adopting the "Nuclear Option" to get someone through.

Other than those 2 or from a short list of second tier woman I think we absolutely see the filibuster.

So, the adjusted chart appears as so:

17-1  Samuel A. Alito Jr.

29-1  Janice R. Brown

24-1  Edith Brown Clement

40-1  Miguel Estrada

06-1  Emilio Garza

06-1  Alberto R. Gonzales

08-1  Edith Jones

07-1  J. Michael Luttig

12-1  Michael McConnell

17-1  Theodore Olson

22-1  William Pryor

28-1  John G. Roberts Jr.

36-1  Larry Thompson

11-1  James Harvie Wilkinson III

In every respect, well said.  Nice guy, competent AG, NOT for SCOTUS.

is not THAT conservative. My guess is that every Republican supports her, including the GOP members of the Gang of 14, plus a couple Dems. That might not be 60-- but it would break the Dems back anyway, because it would mean the filibuster was dead in the water.

It may be our only hope with this president.  He's merely conservative, not uberconservative, lol.  Here's to hoping Bush is stubborn enough to overrule his political advisors...but I'm not hopeful.

Don't forget, they DO think that SecDef Rumsfield is a black woman.

I remember a story once that O'Connor and Bush had discussed this through intermediaries once. Bush had demanded a commitment of 2 full years if she was to be nominated as CJ. She wouldn't give it and in any case Rehnquist stayed on.

Give O'Connor a few days to bask in the glow of the end of a great career.

Cornyn killed his chances of getting into the federal judiciary when he gave that rambling speech after the Schiavo affair. There were too many one liner pullouts that would haunt him in the editorial pages.

I think Cornyn will be too valuable of a voice during the confirmation fight to be the one answering questions. On the other hand, Senators might have a hard time filibustering one of their own.

(Does someone have the numbers handy... How close was the vote for Ashcroft for AG?)

Not intended as a Troll question, but who would be the Moderate Democrat (Liberman et. all.) nomination for the seat be?

True believers on the Right or the Left will have their favorites, wonder who the Centralists would support. O'Conner was nominated by Regan, but voted more often than not as a swing vote on many issues.   The President can either pick a fight by going to the Right, or go in the middle for an easier win. It will be interesting.

I (honestly) don't understand either of the comments above.

overturning racial based acceptance/hiring is critical in my mind.  This is one issue that ticks my wife off to no end.  She, an Asian American, absolutely HATES racial based acceptance/hiring because it is demeaning in her mind.  Her qualifications are not as important as the color of her skin and the slant of her eyes.

Because if you think that speech was correct, he'd be putting himself in harms way!  See!

And Gonzales, of course, has no liabilities.

First, I think Dems are hoping for Gonzalez and Reps are hoping for anyone from a long list of conservatives.  If moderates picked anyone from that long list and made it clear to POTUS, that could influence his decision making.

Second, Reagan was also fulfilling his pledge to nominate the first woman to the SC.  And IIRC he faced a more hostile (less Republican) Senate for the confirmation.

Moderate Democrats would want another O'Connor.  They'd want the balance of the court unchanged.

If President Bush nominates someone like her, then he goes back on the promise he made during BOTH campaigns, that is to nominate judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.

It is an inside joke at an old post that accidentally referred to SecState Donald Rumsfeld... which led to jokes about him being black and a woman.

To seriously consider Jeb! in 2008. If you don't read the comments then consider this, how many more openings are likely in the next 6-10 years? Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer could all step down during that time frame. All liberals.

If Hillary is the Democrat nominee, and we don't run Jeb!, then you run the risk of letting Hillary fill those positions. If we get to name two, or three conservatives now, and maybe two or three in the next 6 years.. that's... carry the one, plus two... uh.. you do the math.

Point is, the next president will certainly name multiple judges too. Who do you want naming those judges, Hillary? McCain? A centrist Republican?

The case for Jeb in 2008.

The way I see it, this resignation couldn't have come at a better time. With the Kelo decision, and the justified public outcry that has followed, the situation, if played correctly, is ripe for a Constitutionalist to be confirmed. Will Bush have the cajones to do it? We'll see!

My bet is he won't do this, but I would nominate Janice Rogers Brown to this seat and let the battle royale that all have been expecting finally commence. She would be the first African American woman appointed, and I think that all here would agree, her conservative/constitutionalist credentials are outstanding! Wouldn't that be a shock? Republicans appointing the first woman, and the first African American woman?

Now, we can only hope for Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Stevens, and Breyer to retire so that we can do some real "housecleaning!"

"If President Bush nominates someone like her, then he goes back on the promise he made during BOTH campaigns, that is to nominate judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas."

You may be right, but nominating someone in the mold of Scalia or Thomas will bring the Senate to a halt on ever other piece of legislation while the Battle Royal plays out. Sort of playing the game for all the marbles or not, including invoking the Nuclear Option to close filibusters or not. With Rehnquist still on the bench, and still ill, is this the time to go full out for a capital "C" conservative or go for someone that may not fully appeal to the Right base.  

Senate vote was 58-42 and when he was nominated, people said the same thing...that he would not be opposed because he was a sitting Senator and had recently lost an election to a dead man with a strong sympathy vote showing (seat taken by widow in weird move).

In the end, it was closest vote for AG in 75 years.

If you guys were looking for one.

I'm off the freaking reservation if that happens. There's no point.

My understanding is that his rulings in Tx re: parental notification were constrained by law and precedent (Roe) but that he is pro-life and on the SC he would be free to rule that way in reversing Roe.

democrats threatening to block anyone not like O'Connor while they praise her.  Love it, they can't even praise her without including demands on the President that they be including in the "advisory" role.  They are threatening to block anyone who would "roll back individual rights".

A good source, but rather questionable motives tells me that Edith Jones may be 1st on the short 1st tier list, but that it may be she that is reluctant?

Why would she be reluctant should this have any credibility?

Assuming Bush nominates anyone to the right of David Souter, the Demos are going to attempt to filibuster him/her anyway.  That being the case, it's better to have the Battle Royale over someone that conservatives and republicans can rally around - and over whom they would be willing to launch The Byrd.

Also, appointing someone Democrats find "acceptable" at this point is likely a recipe for the court being dragged further to the left.  Here's how:

1. The Demos allow Souter 2.0 (Gonzales, let's say) to be confirmed (big of them, eh?) - and the MSM plays-up how Bush chose to "unite rather than divide" blah blah blah
   
   
2. Rehnquist retires
   
   
3. Bush nominates a capital-C-conservative (Luttig, Garza or Owen, let's say) to replace him
   
   
4. The Demos filibuster: claiming s/he is "out of the mainstream" yadda yadda yadda
   
   
5. The MSM - as if on cue - chimes in uniformly that Bush has decided he's "no longer a uniter" etc. etc. etc. and the Gang of 14<^TM> decide that this is indeed an "extrordinary circumstance"
   
   
6. Bush is forced to appoint Souter 3.0 to the bench - shifting the court to the left substantially

So yes, now is precisely the time to fight.  The battle was always going to happen over this replacement in any case - the fact that it's not in the order in which the CW thought it would come changes that calculus not one bit.

...he called SDO a 'fine conservative judge'

There's something to be said for 'laying up' in the golf sense, but we've been doing that for years and years and years.  We've BEEN patient.  The Reagan revolution began the real conservative movement.  We finally got a GOP majority in the house in 1994, and briefly had a conservative revolution (just a minor insurrection, as it turned out).  Having survived Clinton's 8 years, we got a pretty conservative guy in the White House (with the known caveats to that...), and in the Senate we clawed our way from 49 to 51 to 55 Senators, surviving the fact that we were cheated by the courts out of a NJ spot (Forrester, 2004), and basically had the press rob us of seats in LA (Vitter, 2004) and WA (Gorton, 2000).

Meanwhile the conservative alternate press has been growing for 20 years, not just FoxNews but the WaTimes has emerged as influential voices.  And THANK GOD for Rush, and the movement he has spawned.  The Freepers and others like redState rule the internet.  I know dkos and moveon think they do.  To which I say, 61mil to 58 mil, 55 Senators to 45 Senators.  We learned with the Swifties and Rathergate that NO LONGER can we be shouted down or by the msm.  We are the majority in America now, and we can no longer be silenced.

So the time is NOW. We've been building to this for 21 years, while SCOTUS has gotten ever bolder and ever more radically leftist, elitist, audacious, and disrespectful of the Constitution.  No more compromises, no more Soutors, O'Connors, Kennedys.  We want real, bona fide Constitution-loving originalists.  And we want them now.

Ashcroft, remember, had lost his election and was no longer in the body.

Historically, current Senators nearly always skate through.

Perhaps she doesn't want to be put through the wringer and have every case she has ever dealt with parsed by a bunch of idiots?

I do have a question, how old is Edith Jones anyway?

'Why, Johnny Ringo, you look like somebody just walked on your grave.'[

I believe that the dems will throw all they've got at whomever we choose to nominate, so we might as well fight this fight on our terms, for a nominee that we, as conservatives, can be proud of.

Gang of 14

So let's narrow the "wedge" a bit, who would the Gang of 14 like to see in terms of a nomination?  Is there any hope of defusing the fight by consulting with the Gang of 14 before he nominates.

Oh...wait, John McCain, head of the Gang just put the filibuster breaker card in play. He fully supported the President's right to nominate a Conservative, and noted that "elections have consequences" and noted that just because a judge is Conservative is not an "extraordinary" event.  McCain in closing to Teddy...get stuffed.  Methinks that McCain by supporting the President and if successful in carrying the water on this nomination, will move to the head of the class for the Republican nomination for President in '08.

Looks like the President just got the green light to nominate a Conservative from the Gang of 14 leader

Not being a Washington "insider", I'm guessing here, but here goes. My guestimate is that the WH calculus is:

1st a conservative

.... non-fire breathing variety but staunchly on the right

2nd as young as possible

.... I think this is a "biggie." Bush wants to have a big an impact as possible for the longest possible time

3rd a "minority" or woman if possible

.... consistent with his most diverse administration

That being said I don't know enough about the potential candidates to make a guess at who fits these criteria. But I do think that number 2 (age) is as important as number 3 (minority/woman)

--------------------

I don't think that the Senate will have to 'go nuclear' to get who Bush wants on the court.  There will be sound and fury, but unless Bush picks someone so far out they can't even get a majority of GOP votes, they are in.  And McCain and the rest of the gang will be looking very wise indeed.  The way this is going, he's got my vote.  I was leaning towards Frist but he's slipped down and McCain has come up.

going on 90.

... something truly unique, someone who is not a lawyer or a judge or law professor.

Just some "average" American who lives in the real world with the rest of us.

. . . if the nominee loses then whoever voted against them is going to have to deal with them on a day-to-day basis.  Talk about a frosty work environment.

Might be a difficult fillibuster to overcome ;)

Most of the big O'Connor "swing votes" were on issues that, while the majority of liberals may have agreed, the majority of Americans opposed.  Most notably for social conservatives, O'Connor voted to strike down a ban on partial-birth abortion as well as to maintain a system of racial preferences in a public institution.  Polling on these issues show that most Americans oppose both PBA and racial preferences and, as a consequence, would have little trouble with the balance of the Court flipping on these issues.  

So while the Democratic Party will definitely have to come out against the nominee for these reasons, my guess is that pretty much every Senate Republican and even a number of Senate Democrats will realize that voting against the nominee would hurt their standing with the general electorate, especially in those red and purple states.  If Roe was on the line here, the calculus would be totally different, but in this case, I imagine Bush will get his originalist on the Court.

Why not have a TV show like American Idol - who wants to be on the Supreme Court?  You could have retired judges and Judge Judy types on the panel and the contestants would have to answer how and why they would rule on cases and America would vote.  Bush could nominate the winner - I'll bet they'd FLY through the Senate!

Liberman is, himself, an examples of a moderate choice for a Democratic President to make.  A moderate democrat choice is one who is just like a Republican but pro-abortion.  Bill Clinton would be another moderate Democrat pick for the court.  

The GOP does have a number of moderate pro-life choices they can use.  However, these shouldn't be needed until a liberal leaves the court.

Breyer, Scouter, Stevens, Ginsburgh are the liberals.  Their replacement would likely need to be more moderate, such as a McConnell or a Senator.

All the other judges are moderate or conservative.  Replacing them with a conservative should be do-able.

Had he not withdrawn, chances are he would have made it through the Gang of 14 compromise.  He's already been vetted and, aside from experience, he doesn't many weaknesses.

Plus, after having been so patient and working so hard, if the Republican base doesn't get a real, no-fooling conservative justice, they will become seriously disillusioned, and that will just help to open the door for Hillary in '08.

Nobody voted for a conservative president and Senate so they could maintain the status quo.  They want to change the face of the court.  Trading a moderate for a moderate will not do.  Let's get it on.

I'm sure we're all scrambling for any piece of information and unknowingly sometimes misinformation we can find. All the same...

..., it's come to my attention that it will be Luttig as best guess. He represents what the solid far right and administration actually really want. The administration is summing up that the O'Connor resignation will be best served by placing now the person they really want. The fight on the floor is going to be inevitable anyways. When considering the the political cost of the continuation of war could be unknown and perhaps damaging in the future which may result in waning support on the Senate floor it would be in the administrations best interest to try it now, rather than later, and indeed it will be Luttig.

Adjusted he now gets a:

2-1 advantage.

have you ever read "legalese"? Most normal people would not be able to get past the legalese to see what is being said.

Lawyers and judges know legalese, and can get beyond it to understand what is being said.

I envisioned that same scenario over in the Rehnquist post (having three SC posts was probably a really bad idea, as it's splitting the discussion).

Whoever Bush picks this time has to be at least as conservative as the Lone Ranger, or else the net effect of his Presidency could be to shift the court left.

I still think Janice Rogers Brown would be ideal, especially since the Dems biggest problem was her strict interpretation of the Constitution's "Takings Clause". It's been shown Americans support her position on this issue with the outrage over the recent SCOTUS eminent domain case. Plus she was JUST confirmed, so why not?

There would nothing to stop her nomination.

Plus they have Kavanuagh dangling because there is no more room on the DC Circuit.  Janice Rogers Brown will free up the spot for Kavanaugh.

about Rush, though. He's spawned a movement, but not necessarily a great one. IMHO he's way further right than I would like, and to me sounds like someone who's more loyal to whatever the White House says because the White House is Republican. I like listening to him, but a lot of what he says is almost pure animosity towards anyone remotely liberal. IMHO he's the same distance away from the center as Warren was, but in the opposite direction (probably a stretch of comparison, but I can't think of any Dems off the top of my head who share the degree of Rush's....views? but on the opposite end. Kennedy?).

My two cents...please don't flame me for not being in love with Rush :(

About Rush "and to me sounds like someone who's more loyal to whatever the White House says because the White House is Republican."? Obviously you haven't listened to him in the last 4 1/2 years, Rush has taken Bush to the woodshed for Bush's immigration policy, spending, 'new tone', No Child Left Behind, and probably more but that's just off the top of my head.

I have no problem with moderates on either end, personally. I have my own reservations against abortion, but at the same time I feel that it IS a woman's right to choose...

At the same time, I feel the restrictions should be logistical to a degree. I would like it to be an available option to some sort of couple, but for the people my age that love to have sex with a different guy every week, they should take responsibility for their actions.

One problem I see with forcing women to have children, though, is that it won't reduce the rate of HIV transfer among the people that just don't care. They'll just abandon the babies somewhere and they'll die anyway. Do you see what I'm saying? I think it could help a little and keep couples a bit more aware of what they're doing if it's implemented correctly. Like, if they have an "accident", ok they get an abortion and move on. If they get careless, then they should be forced to take responsibility for their carelessness. Again, how one would pull that off I don't know, but it's an idea. I would not like to see the SC pushed far to the right or left. We can't agree with all the SC decisions, but stacking it with conservatives so that it always votes conservatively I don't feel is good for the country on the whole. Every president would love to stack a court in his favour, but eh. I don't know, I'm just worried about an overly conservative court. Having the GOP in control of everything would obviously help conservative causes get through, but therein lies the defeat of democracy: a single party (that has a real voice).

Before this thread gets hijacked, let me remind you that no SC nominees are advocating making abortion illegal.

The choice is between letting legislatures put limits on abortion or agreeing that the Constitution give you a right to abortion.  Only after Roe is overturned will the debate on limits/legality be necessary.  Right now the debate is about which part of the Constitution says "you have a right to abort unborn children at any time."

Since I think "reality" TV shows are ridiculous ...

But I am only half kidding about the idea. Frankly we have gone from being a nation "of laws" to a nation "about laws." Everything we do now days involves lawyers. The legislatures are mostly lawyers. Judges are all obviously lawyers. A society that places as much emphasis on lawyers as we do ties itself up in "the law."

... if half the legislature wasn't lawyers and all the judges weren't lawyers, people would be forced to write laws and contracts in English. Then the rest of us could understand them. And we wouldn't have to spend so much time worshipping at the alter of the lawyers.

Another good thing that comes from this fight is that it will give people like Durbin, Kennedy and Pelosi something to do besides slinging mud at the troops. Now they can spend their days figuring out why Mr. X or Ms. Y is unsuitable to sit on the Court.

I haven't seen any news yet but I'm curious as to when one of the Dems starts talking about the President "consulting" with them about the appointment.

This promises to be a very interesting period.

Is there any thought whatsoever about Judge Susan Black of the 11th Circuit?

I just agree with ConservativeD in saying that's not the Rush I hear every day.  I hear him being uncompromisingly rightist (which is part of the appeal).  But he's been quite an agitator against GWB's cowtowing to the left in the Education bill, the Medicare prescription handout , the McCain campaign law ('No Incumbent Left Behind'!!!!!), and a number of other big-government forays.

If you were looking for people who are as far-left as Rush is far-right, let me drop you some names, and I'm just being helpful not snotty.  You were grasping for names of committed far-lefties -- although Earl Warren and Teddy Kennedy certainly work.  Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Rodham Rodham Rodham Rodham, Sheila Jackson Lee, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Bernie Sanders, Kwesi Infume, Richard Gere, Alec Baldwin, Al Sharpton, Barney Frank, FDR.  That small list should get you started. It gives me indigestion.

So, I guess Trogdor explained perfectly the moderate position on abortion.

Namely that a mother should be allowed to kill her babie if she accidently become pregnant.  In my life, I've accidently slipped.  Accidently fallen.  I've never accidently had sex.  Perhaps Trogdor needs to talk with his parents about how people get pregnant, it seems he thinks it can happen by accident.

The second argument put forward is that if someone is having sex with a small number of partners over a particular time frame that this person should be allowed to kill her baby, but if she is having sex with a large number of people at the same time, she should not be allowed to kill her baby.  I do not understand that logic.

I don't see how someone 'earns' the right to kill her baby if she simply limits her sex to a few people.  I don't think that a person loses his right to life, simply because his mother didn't sleep with enough people to qualify.

Perhaps, however, some think we should have courts run around the country and count how many people a woman has slept with to see if it is too many for her to have an abortion?

The thread is on the Supreme Court. We don't want this to be a debate over abortion.

Let's keep it on topic.

I would nominate Judge Janice Brown because filibustering her will give us the best chance at proving the gang of 14 agreement was a sham.

The three attacks the Democrats will likely use against any nominee are:

1 - Not a woman

2 - Not an Experienced Judge

3 - Not in the "Mainstream"

Naturally, they can't use the first on Judge Brown. They could use the second, but she has been on a state supreme court and is a federal appeals judge, wheras O'Connor was only a state superior court judge for all of 3-4 years before her nomination. Therefore, the Democrats will naturally have to go back to saying she's an extremist.

However, she was specifically covered by the deal as not being an extremist.  While I certainly don't trust the Democrats' word at all, putting her up would call the Democrats bluff and a filibuster would give us three things.

1 - It would allow us to go to the moderate/independant voters with a crystal clear breaking of the vaunted agreement.

2 - The 7 gang of 14 Republicans would be under incredible pressure to vote for the majority (constitutional/nuclear) option since the deal was clearly broken. They're caught in a pincer between their base and the media.

3 - The 7 gang of 14 Democrats, most of whom are in red states, would be seen as liars by their conservative areas and would be far more likely to lose their re-elections.  They're caught in a pincer between their swing constitutents and party loyalty.

This would of course require a considerable PR campaign on conservatives' part to hold their feet to the fire.  But a Brown nomination would give us the clearest case politically that the Democrats broke the agreement and would enable us to use the rule change to eliminate the judicial filibusters with a minimized backlash, which we're probably going to have to do at some point anyway.

(Naturally, these are all true of Judge Owen as well, I just prefer Brown.)

Please refer to my diary and post a comment; we can continue debating. Also, was your moderate Republican comment meant in sarcasm or seriousness? I'm just looking to clarify is all. Back on topic

Indeed it does, and to be honest I have not listened to him all the last 4 1/2 years. I started listening to him about 2-3 years ago occasionally (I'm young and was jsut getting into talk radio) but never really started listening regularly until last year, and then gradually I just lost interest.

I have read that he has gotten more extreme the last decade or so, but then again I could easily be ill-informed. I really got into politics only recently so I apologize in trying to form opinions too fast.  But thank you for the list.

When I was little, I liked the Democrats becuase their colour was blue lol. Then I liked them just because my president was a Dem. Then I quickly became very conservative after being introduced to politics about 3-4 years ago, and in all honesty have been wavering in the middle for about the last 7 months or so.

I admit I know little but it's wonderful hearing both sides, especially after dealing with people at school declaring "I only read the Boston  Herland/Globe" as if they are amazed I could even ask. I read both, dammit and feel people should be even more apt to read the opposing side so they can better formulate their arguments, rather than just listen to their own views "Yeah, I agree with that" as opposed to "No, I disagree with that, and this is why". Know what I mean?

And I'm drifting off-topic again, but anyways thank you for the list

You seem like a reasonable center-left moderate, still working it out as to where you want to end up politically.  We like everybody of any persuasion who does not scream or troll.  Here at RedState, you will find many people who have strong viewpoints but argue them well.  Mostly right, to be sure, but we have some damnably articulate lefties and left-centers who force the rest of us to think deeply and defend well our own arguments, not getting away with vapid, airy platitudes.  Steel sharpens steel.

Thanks for your support. I generally do see myself as a center-left and either Centrist / Libertarian depending, and blah I hate the labels and the 1dimensional spectrum. I prefer a two-dimensional spectrum, y being Liberal and x being Conservative. I don't recall the name of it, but it looks more or less like this

Liberal

l         p

l

l

l

o_<u>i</u&gt_____

    Con

o is basically anarchy or something, no govt regulation, no nothing i guess, the i is where libertarians fall (approx) like lots of personal freedom and small government, then the p is where populists fall, with little personal freedom and huge government regulation. I fell somewhere in the middle zone called Centrist has being like 55% liberal, 45% conservative or something for like 3 of those stupid little "how liberal/conservative are you?!" tests.

Thats the jist of what it looks like i cant remember the name for the life of me, though. Feel free to critique.

And back to my original point; I prefer the community here for the most part over the Nation (mostly cuz of the site's functionality haha). It just botehrs me how quickly people jump on others indignantly. I've already had one person say somethin like "Well, Trogdor has summed up the very definition of a moderate republican" and just chewed me out lol, and I've been here 5 days. I see it happen on the Nation when this user OKSPORTSGUY gets torn apart like a pack of ravenous eagles. Blah. I think Zero is one of the few sane people on that site, but I've heard plenty here tear him apart. C'est la vie (someone correct that haha)