In article >,
TLOlczyk > wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:44:36 -0400, Stan Horwitz >
> wrote:
>
> > Geez! Taking six months to
> >find an assistant White House chef is ironic considering how quickly
> >President Bush took to find a Supreme Court nominee, and they were not
> >even looking for a chief chef!
> You can bet that they spend 5 years checking, rechecking, thinking
> over who the next nominee would be. Expecting and hoping to get at
> lest one. They've probably had a short list for the last three years
> and only had to pick one to suit the particular circumstances of the
> opening.

You're probably right. I do wish the Democrats in Washington and the
liberal special interest groups would back down and support John
Roberts' nomination. All in all, conservative presidents have done a
pretty good job at appointing justices who have turned out to be
friendly toward liberal ideals and the Chief Justice is very
conservative. Hell, 7 out of 9 of the justices on the Supreme Court were
appointed by either Bush I or Reagan, yet today's conservatives consider
the court to be activist. Go figure! The only time the conservatives
actually got it right (from their perspective) in Supreme Court
appointees is with Scalia and Thomas. I think the real battle for the
Supreme Court will be to fill Rehnquist's seat if he retires before Bush
II leaves office, and we all know he is likely to do that. So, if the
conservatives had any sense, they would oppose Roberts' nomination
because he is definitely nowhere near as conservative as Thomas and
Scalia, but they are cheering from the sidelines, despite the fact they
may be witnessing the appointment of another David Souter.