Breaking News: Sandra Day O'Connor to step down from the Supreme Court
 

No news link yet, but it's been all over the news this morning... The first woman on the Supreme Court, appointed by Reagan, after 24 years, is stepping down from the court...

Sandra Day O'Connor leaving Supreme Court

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman to join the U.S. Supreme Court.WASHINGTON (AP) -- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, said Friday she is retiring.

O'Connor, 75, said she will leave before the start of the court's next term in October, or when the Senate confirms her successor. There was no immediate word from the White House on who might be nominated to replace O'Connor.

It's been 11 years since the last opening on the court, one of the longest uninterrupted stretches in history. O'Connor's decision gives Bush his first opportunity to appoint a justice.

"This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor. It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms. I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure."

The White House has refused to comment on any possible nominees, or whether Bush would name a woman to succeed O'Connor. Her departure leaves Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only other woman among the current justices.

Possible replacements include Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and federal courts of appeals judges J. Michael Luttig, John Roberts, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Michael McConnell, Emilio Garza and James Harvie Wilkinson III. Others mentioned are former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, lawyer Miguel Estrada and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson, but Bush's pick could be a surprise choice not well known in legal circles.

Another prospective candidate is Edith Hollan Jones, a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who was also considered for a Supreme Court vacancy by President Bush's father.

O'Connor's appointment in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan, quickly confirmed by the Senate, ended 191 years of male exclusivity on the high court.

She wasted little time building a reputation as a hard-working moderate conservative who emerged as a crucial power broker on the nine-member court.

O'Connor often lines up with the court's conservative bloc, as she did in 2000 when the court voted to stop Florida presidential ballot recounts sought by Al Gore, and effectively called the election for President Bush.

As a "swing voter," however, O'Connor sometimes votes with more liberal colleagues.

Perhaps the best example of her influence is the court's evolving stance on abortion. She distanced herself both from her three most conservative colleagues, who say there is no constitutional underpinning for a right to abortion, and from more liberal justices for whom the right is a given.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

and here i thought Renquist was gonna be interesting, this sort of came as a suprise... Gotta hand to to her, though, announcing it on a Friday before a long holiday weekend, when most of DC has blown town for the weekend...

I'm watching the news feed right now. The only thoughts going through my head are "We're screwed, we're screwed...it's all hopeless now". No more Roe v. Wade, no more filibuster, no more human rights....it's over.

::cries silently:: :mad:

Its hardly that bad TM. But we can say the circus is about to begin.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! :rolleyes:

This isn't really unexpected, but even though I often disagreed with her voting, I think she was a good justice.

Although, instead of a replacement, we should just give Scalia her vote ;) .

Thank you for your service over the years Justice O'Connor.

I am very excited to see how this plays out.

I am certainly in favor of a strict federalist...but the minority party in the Senate obviously has other concerns, plus they hav e the filibuster (for now).

I can't wait to watch this unfold.

I read something about AG Gonzales being floated a few days ago (leaks from the present executive are very rare) as a sacrificial lamb.

Justice O'Connor was one of the most unpredicatable Justices ever...and frankly replacing her with someone more consistently federalistly inclined would go a long way to undoing much of the "HEAP" damage done to the constitution.

I would bet on another female or at least a minority...probably hispanic.

I am particulary excited to watch how the democrats will demonize who ever is sent up.

-bear

What are the odds now that Bush gets to nominate two SC justices within his second term?

Actually, I am naive enough to believe some last minute finaggling and backroom agreements for the betterment of the nation will hold this scenario:

Bush gets to promote Scalia to chief justice.

Bush gets 1 true conservative (approved with dems having a little say)

Bush names 1 more liberal/ conservative (approved with Dem recommendations)

all three nominations go in on the fast track and are in place by October.

I think that scenario everyone can live with..... those that can't and argue Bush needs to take it all and provoke a fight, only prove they don't give a damn about what is best for the nation.... they only care about power, greed and getting everything they want regardless of the cost.

And then ther is next year and '07..... Bush could feasibly be naming quite a few more.

There's that, and there's also the question of whether alienating half the senatorial base is worth taking a risk on justices that you can't control once they've got the bench. I think your scenario sounds about right...but there may be a little fight about the conservative backgrounds of the justices...of course.

That would be the scenario that I would predict. Multiple nominations and a negotiated package deal. A conservative and a moderate, though Bush may suprise everyone and nominate a conservative directly to Chief Justice.

Damn Pan, that's a good analysis. I agree also. Keep your fingers crossed...

I think this is rediculous, and if this played out as you propose nothing good for the country will exist about it. The liberals have lost, and the democrats with them. They will continue to loose as every program they enacted has failed miserably, they have no solutions or even out side the box proposals for anything effective, and the exclusive solution to the problems they already created is maligning, demonizing and extorting from the successful and those who improve and expand upon the free market successes that makes this country great. They are the ones 'grasping for the power' they lost by being corrupt, manipulative, power hungry, above the law, and with utter disregard for the will of the people. Sure they have the college professor types and other marginally productive members of the electorate, plus a few well intentioned but misguided souls who believe that human nature is dynamic, but that's about it. Even the staid pandered to minorities which was considered an important portion of the base is dwindling.

Power, greed, and getting everything they want is a poor way to characterize the larger slice of the population.

First of all, we only have one retirement. Second of all Bush has nothing to loose what so ever by packing the SCOTUS as he sees fit, and fighting tooth and nail to do so since he isn't re-electable.

I hope he sticks to his guns, and 'packs' the court with 'right wing extremists' (codespeak by liberals and democrats for people who believe in limited government, enumerated federal powers, and majority rule with clear and concise restrictions on minority disenfrancishment).

Still, I can't wait to watch it play out.

-bear

majority? at the last election bush won by 3%.
in polls more recent, bear, people who think as you do are somewhere in the area of 30%.
sound to me like you are hallucinating--i dont think anyone with even the slightest relation to actual power has a view that resembles yours in the slightest.

i find pan's scenario plausible but horrifying (scalia as chief justice? how on earth would you justify that?)

Clearly not on this board. Last bastion for your dying breed, to be sure.

None the less, polls not withstanding, and frankly quite irrelevant to this discussion or even to any of the larger issues involving the currently standing and MAJORITY elected federal government...last time checked, as narrow as it was, the dems lost, and lost to a decidedly dullard like candidate. The majority spoke, and the defeat was resounding and broadbased. Plain and simple.

3% or .0000000000000001%....a majority is a majority.

-bear

I don't know how you can look at the current administration and believe that they care about any of these things.

While I may not be as steadfast as Bear, I do agree with a few of his points.

Bush was voted by a majority, 3% or not. If you dont see a conservative trend in that, simply look at how Congress is dominated by Republicans.

The problem with polls are the wording. 2 words will completely change how it is answered and then the result. Something as simple as "Do you think Bush is doing a good job?" vs. "Do you think Bush could be doing a better job" will completely alter the centrist statement thus the "approval". Besides the lowest I've seen is 48%, not 30.

I can't and I don't. I can only hope that some how, while aligning their nominees with other ideology, that we get something to this effect as a result.

Hope against hope, I guess.

-bear

One can always hope. I think they should appoint tom delay.

I think that Bradford Plumer has laid out the most likely Supreme Court nomination process scenario:

Link.

This is likely. As Atrios points out, why would conservative groups have $18 million poised to spend on the nomination process unless Bush were considering taking a reasonable, bipartisan approach and nominate someone Democrats and Republicans can accept.

I highly doubt that Bush will approach this in a sensible manner, although if I am proved wrong, I will gladly give credit where credit is due.

Remember, Clinton met with Orrin Hatch to decide on mutually acceptable candidates. Breyer and Ginsburg, whom Clinton nominated, were actually suggested by Hatch. Think Bush will ask what Patrick Leahy thinks?

Supreme Court Justice Alberto "Torturo" Gonzalez?

We are so screwed.

I suspect (hoping against hope ;) ) you're being sarcastic, meaning we have arrived at some common ground, as I definately don't agree with this :thumbsup:

-bear

Janice Roger's Brown is a right wing lunatic? Certainly doesn't say much for this blogger, that's for sure. It's says alot for the liberal propoganda machine, but very little for this puppet of it.

You just might be right about that last sentence...although it's tough to imagine us being any more screwed then we already are, remember:

1. 'Public Use' means private development.
and
2. Interstate Commerce incluldes non-commercial, within a single state's borders activity.

I guess honestly all that's left is black being white and up being down.

Only a lawyer could 'effectively' make these arguments.

-bear

Oh, god...Oh, god....PLEASE let it be Kozinski....PLEASE LET IT BE KOZINSKI!!!!!!

I'm not sure quite what you are saying here. I see the irony of the first point as one of the things the current, conservative, administration is walking all over. Most every environmental issue in my State involves private use of public land. Approved and abetted by the conservatives.

Not sure what your second issue is about. When I think of State's rights (not what you mean, I'm sure), I think of the current administrations issues with my State's legally voted decision about medical marijuana.

I would be all for a government/court that supported public as public, and private as private (particularly when private is individual activities with/for themselves). Strangely, that's NOT what we get with this administration.

So pardon my cynacism when I doubt that's what we'll get with it's nominees.

First of all the catch all "current conservative adminsitration" is invalid. My first point was made possible by the liberalist of justices....NOT THE CURRENT "NEO"CON adminstration.

Second of all, I whole heartedly agree and share your issue with the federal government's ability to intercede on the grounds of interstate commerce (also made possible by the liberalist of justices), in a democratically approved activity that is non-commercial and conducted within the borders of a single state.

The nonsense about the "current conservative administration" is absurd. They were complicit, but they aren't conservative, and they only got what the liberal court gave them.

Finally, I share your validly asserted cynacism regarding nominee possibilities.

I'd really like to learn more about your indication that environmental concerns and conservatives are in any way in collusion against private property.

-bear

And related to the scenario that was linked a few posts ago: What if a 'demon' is actually nominated? If someon is nominated that is completely unacceptable to almost half the nation, shouldn't a fuss be raised?

Wouldn't an extreme fuss be raised if Clinton had nominated Hugger McTreeguy?


Perhaps we could, oh, I don't know, look at the merits of the arguements?

I'm no policy wonk, so my details are fuzzy. But it's my understanding the in the last days of the Clinton administration, he made a number of Executive Orders creating/enforcing public land (forests).

It's also my understanding the Bush rescinded (sp?) those very quickly. Now private enterprise is logging the jeebers (and mining)(and developing) that land. Has nothing to do with the courts, and everything to do with the current administration.

I'll grant you that they aren't conservative in the way the word used to be used. :D

Blaming the 'liberal courts' for the behaviors of those the hold the White House, Senate and House seems like a stretch to me.

I find it funny that Bush and company pressed the medicinal marijuana issue into the SC and gladly accepted the ruling, yet some people are talking like Bush's nominees will be better..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

As for eminent domain..... guess what he wanted that ruling also, electric companies and all need to rebuild that power grid and oops if for some reason that nice piece of land over there looks good for a Wal*Mart because it is just outside city limits and the city voted to keep Wal*Mart out..... well they are out of city limits.......

So don't lecture me on how pious and how true to the Constitution and how much better his nominees will be.

(BTW Rehnquist will probably retire soon....)

As for my assessment I stick by it...... although Scalia may not make Chief it may end up being Thomas.

Do I think that scenario would be gloom and doom for the Dems.? No. I think it's the best scenario for both sides.

Any other scenario leads to further division of this country and I don't think we can handle much more without breaking.

I suggest you reconsider. It was the LIBERAL Justices on the Supreme Court that handed down this latest abortion that said that the State could take private property and give it to another private party as long as it increased tax revenues. Scalia, Thomas, Renquist, and O'Connor were the DISSENTERS.

I was similarly excited to see how the republicans would demonize who ever Clinton sent up...but alas I was disappointed. Maybe because it was more then a decade ago and I was to busy with my own self absorbed deviance, but either way, I don't really remember hearing about millions of dollars on attack dosiers or such for former ACLU attorney's?

Either way...it seems to be the MO. When the president gives a speech the Dems have a rehearsed complaining speech ready to roll.

Your right though, in both cases it would probably be the same. Except for the principle, by which the irrelevant democrats operate:

Living Constitution is, imho, complete bullshit. Judges who go home at night and say:

"Honey, I had a great day at work. The constitution meant exactly what I wanted it to mean..."

...sicken me. And they are "liberal" and usually aligned with the Democrats.

Conservatives, once and occassionally aligned with Republicans, are not (usually) of this persuasion.

-bear

I submit we have a lot of division to go. As the democratic party continunes to spiral into obscurity, and they continue to attempt reigning in of the power that is eluding them, a new more reasonable and less corrupted party, with platforms, solutions, and ideas will surface.

Those last fragments of the party will cling on for dear life until finally, either a revolution will break out, or they will broken and damaged into a rock bottom rarely experienced but by the likes of junkies and alcoholics. So brain washed will they have been with dillusion.

I say this as one who STRONGLY believes that this country needs an effective opposition to the current NEO-Con incarnation of the republican party.

-bear

Who cares? You seem to forget that the SC only interprets law. They don't legislate from the bench. If the LAW ON THE BOOKS says that a city government tan take property and give it to some developer and build a mall on top of it, then that's what will be handed down by the court. Their job is not to create law, but to interpret it. It's our job as citizens to get our elected officals to change the law so that the SC will interpret it differently. What Scalia, Thomas, Renquist, and O'Connor were trying to do was that they were trying to change law from the bench. Which isn't kosher.

I think that you fail to show an understanding of the cyclical nature of politics j8ear.

I find this line of reasoning warped:

Here's what these four tried to do:

1. Prevent Public use from including private development.
2. Prevent Interstate Commerce from including non-commercial activity , conducted entirely within a single state's border

Here's what the other five did:

1. Included private development as a permissable extension of public use.
2. Included non-commercial activity, conducted entirely within a single states borders as INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

Upholding the principles of the constitution is not legislating from the bench, stretching and bastardizing the constitution to satisfy your ideology is legislating from the bench.

It's really quite simple.

-bear

Fair enough

j8ear, if the Republicans send up a right wing nut, the Democrats will (and should) protest. Now, if Bush consults the Democrats to find a consensus candidate as Clinton consulted Republicans to find someone everyone could agree with, AND the Democrats protest against that person, then they should be called on it.

But if Bush tries to ram a hard-right candidate down America's throat, and ignores Democratic advice, then the Democrats should have every right to protest. In fact, if Clinton had tried to ram a far left candidate on to the Supreme Court, then I fully believe that Republicans would have every right to protest. However, Clinton chose what was best for this country by working with Republican leaders to find someone most Americans could agree with. will Bush do the same? I doubt it.

Lastly, on Janice Rogers Brown, she is clearly unacceptable and far-right, as well as someone the Democrats have every right to - and should - protest:

Link.

P.S. More on Brown:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12751

Brown on Social Security:
Brown on government:
Brown on pretty much every major civil rights case in the last 60 years:
Whether you agree with her positions or not, you can't deny that her views are clearly not in the mainstream and that she is worthy of protest from the Democrats.

wait--the bush administration is too far to the LEFT for you, bear?
where do you position yourself?
you arguments for the most part read like things i used to hear on militia radio--i am surprised that i havent run across you arguing for the gold standard somewhere or another.
just out of curiousity--maybe no here, maybe in another thread--could you give a general recap of what kind of america you would like to see, if you could choose, please?

all i can say about this--which has been sinking in slowly over the course of the day--is that the best friend of even more moderate republicans is the complete incompetence of this administration. they are loosing support amongst moderates and there are even indications that the demcrats may have located their spine. the prospect of possibly two supreme court appointments being handed to the bushpeople was always the nightmare scenario for anyone who is not effectively a rightwing militant. we'll see how the fight goes down--but i would think that cowboy george will have a much harder time getting some rightwing nutjob through confirmation now than he would have, say, in the two weeks after the last election, which was about the length of time that his administration acted as though they had anything like political momentum.

Not a single one of those quotes bothered my in the least. IN THE FREAKING LEAST.

I can see how some might find accountability, limited and enumerated federal powers, personal responsibility and things of this nature right wing and extremist though. Because, hell you have to call it something, and you might as well but it in bold, surround it with quotes, and make it all big, terrible and wax indignant about them, because other wise you've got nothing:

Kind of like the New York Times in commenting in the Kelo decision ran this headline:

"" "Property Rights Movement" dealt a huge setback. "" As if the property rights movement was something extremist and to be feared.

Pahleese,

-bear

I'm not entirely sure. I am a republican voting (shudders at that reality), libertarian sympathizing, anarchy advocating human I guess.

I think there are far to many of us, most of us are weak and should be weeded out instead of coddled.

I am one hundred percent in favor of self reliance, but have grown soft since my daughter was born just over a year ago, under less then ideal circumstances.

I have become very confused lately...yet simultaneously enlightened and motivated.

-bear

I would be very careful with thoughts of this grand nature, especially in light of the recent stompings the democrats have been handed while believing this very same thing.

Please LET SOME semblence of reason emerge somewhere that can effectively challenge the present day republican. PLEASE...

STELLLLLAAAAAA!!!!!!

I'm just saying is all,

:thumbsup:

-bear

more talk about how the religious elements are under attack in these United States? Considering that every president has been a churchgoer (43/43), and you couldn't possibly get elected if you weren't a man of god (we'll leave the woman of god thing for another time), and the one of the strongest lobby groups is the far right...

how in the heck does this

have any connection to reality? I say she's not eligible because she can only see what she wants to see. :D

I like my judges to be able to look at both sides of an issue...

Ummm, that is so wrong that I don't even know where to start. What they ruled is that the well-established meaning of eminent domain under the 5th Amendment was basically garbage. This decision is on the par of Wickard v. Filburn as far as being a landmark decision.

Sorry but I am not following your logic at all.

Secularists claim to be fighting a was against the "Evangelical Fringe," as they like to frame it. You know, the separation of church and state, blah, blah, blah, I'll impose my lack of morals on you...but don't you dare impose your morals on me, relativism crowd.

Her position seems reasonable to me, well connected with reality, and while only an 'account of her speech' from an unidentified source, doesn't really seem out of this world or even remotely in conflict with the stated goals of the secularist position.

What say you?

-bear

I think let these rightists believe the Dem party is weak as it is strengthening. I remember in the 70's when the Dems were saying the GOP was all but dead.

It's a penduulum and it swings, to put a death knell into one party is ignorant, not knowing history and arrogantly blind.

If you truly believe the dems will lose seats in '06 or that in '08 there won't be a close race that the Dems may win..... then you truly deserve what you get.

You have the GOP feeding on their own, they are running someone against Dewine in Ohio in '06 and someone against Voinivich in '08. Guess what.... your party pissed off 2 strong senators who, if they do lose, will lose to Dems. I can almost guarantee it. If they win do you think they will still be strong GOP (after the party tried to kill them off) or try to show their clout by becoming baby McCains and more liberalized?

Never underestimate your enemy or back them into a corner if you are not sure you can kill them.

Because as the 80's proved with the GOP gaining new strenghth so shall the Dem party of present.

For starters, I'd say the attempts to clean up Politics on TFP are working :D I'm enjoying reading and participating these days. Kudos to you, Bear, for being part of the fix. I only hope I am, too.


But to the point...

(fine print first) (this IS from an unknown source, and may or may not be accurate)(but since you don't seem to mind the sentiment, let's pretend it's accurate)

This is a great paragraph to me, because I disagree with almost ALL of it. Great, because maybe I can come to at least understand...

I don't think secularist 'frame' anything, but if they do I sure don't see "War" talk. (Perhaps I just don't hang out in the secular smoking area.) I most CERTAINLY don't see anyone in that crowd saying "I'll impose my morals on you". What I see them saying is "leave me alone to have whatever morals I want".

That last sentence really seems to be the key to me. Somehow, both sides feel the other is pushing their values on the other. And neither thinks they are doing the pushing.

My take: when you have issues with Gays in the military it seems one side IS pushing. If I'm gay, there's a job that would benefit my country I can't have.
Another example: Someone can believe the 10 commandments are the word of God if they want to. But when you put them on the wall in a court of law, it seems to be pushing again. So I see limitations that are real, and I see pushing of values (however subtley)


Back to Janice Brown: it may be that the rhetoric is what turns me off so strongly. But to say that there is a WAR, and that some group wants to "divorce America from it's religious roots", I just can't see it.

Even if there is a group that would want to do that (which I doubt very strongly, and see NO evidence of), that group certainly isn't big enough, or strong enough to do anything about it.

I would bet over 90% of congress (all States and Federal) are churchgoers. How could anyone "divorce America from it's religious roots"? So that's why I say she seemingly isn't grounded in reality.

Her "frame" seems to be that such could happen. It's not a stretch (for me) to see her becoming an activist judge working to prevent something. Rather than a judge that rules on law.


The "quote" in question:

You can't have a judge in any position making speeches about how bad one political party is. You not only turn off 1/2 the population but that judge just destroyed any belief that they could be nuetral and base their decisions on law and not politics.

Thanks and back at you. Honestly, a week or too 'vacation' [read: suspension] really does the trick so to speak. ;)

Anywho, it's been fun, but my weekend has come to an end, and we have guests chez nous, who I want to watch get too drunk on this celebration of the country of my orgin.

Happy Canada Day to all...and for those limited just to the middle of North America...

Happy Fourth to you as well.

Peace all,

-bear

Um, dude...wow...that's unsettling.

Anyway, Bush is most likely going to appoint at least one far right conservative. Maybe he'll then appoint a more moderate, but still right leaning, second person after Renquist leaves. The Supreme Court is still going to be ultra-conservative.

The most frightening thing out of all of this, though, is how incredibly conservative our nation has become in the last 5 or so years. Back in the day, the House and Senate was full of Democrats. Every college student belonged to the College Democrats or was on the left. More than that, the term "liberal" was not deemed an insult. If this trend continues, we're going to be back in the days where religion rules everything, big businesses and monopolies run amok, and "freedom" exists only if you're a Protestant who owns a Cadillac, has 2.5 children (with a wife who he's only slept with 2.5 times), and believes that God watches over everything. The only difference from the 1700s is that African-Americans and women will be a part of it. Personally, I LIKE the freedoms that we have now. I am both happy that we have abortion and that we have the right to buy guns. However, we soon will become even more ridiculously Puritanical than we are already...and that will be a sad, sad day in the history of this nation. Everything is cyclical - the cycle is now restarting at the beginning.

Don't worry, TM, it will only take another massive economic depression, brought about by the shortsightedness of conservative policy, to bring liberalism back into the fold.

And why is this? It's because the Democrats followed the ideologues so that they are SO far to the left, that they might as well be from a different planet. I've heard people say Kerry lost in 04 because he was not LIBERAL ENOUGH.
It's because the Left has taken "tolerance" and twisted it into a shakedown game for their benefit. It's because the left has been ACTIVELY EXTORTING MONEY from people by saying "Give my group money or we will boycott you, biatch!" It's because the Left has a "Reverend" go to "counsel" a sitting President in trouble for being unable to keep his zipper closed, WHILE TAKING THE REVEREND'S PREGNANT MISTRESS ALONG. Common sense has COMPLETELY fled the Democratic Party.

The Left has become so intellectually bankrupt and out of touch (another example is the "Let's give Communism ONE more try, I promise that unlike every other Communist Government on the planet, I will NOT slaughter my opposition and whomever I please once you put absolute, despotic power in my hands!" crowd) with the American people and HISTORY that the moderates have deserted them in droves. Good Christ, a moderate Democrat addressed the RNC this past cycle!!! Yet the Deaniacs and Kerry Apologists keep screaming "Steer MORE to the Left!"

The tide will turn soon enough. America has a breaking point. I just hope that the new justice isn't some rightie nut-job and all kinds of shit end up getting overturned. Take away that many freedoms from people to satisfy the neo-con minority, (yes they are a minority, there are more moderates than you realize) and you have a large group of people taking a sance against government.

Republicans had their revolution on the 90's. History will repeat itself and the cycle will start again.

Do you think that if Kerry had an ounce of charisma, the election might have turned out differently? I sure do. Closely fought race, imagine someone with the charisma, and the ability to speak to values, of say... John Edwards had lead the ticket. I think it would have been game over.

I say that not to descredit your other opinions, but to suggest that Kerry lost due to politics gives many in the electorate far too much credit.


This is the same group that, when polled in the primaries in 2000, said that Bush was a reformer. AFTER he'd been getting his ass kicked by McCain and he started putting out advertising about how he (Bush) was a reformer...

/threadjacks R us...

For you pot smokers: a conservative bench is your best bet at leagalizing the herb.

I don't partake of the ganja, but umm, how do you say this?