Bush's Judicial Nomination bruhaha must have a secret

I believe that the Republicans are smart people, and Bush's* cabinet are smart people. So, why are they complaining about a 98% success record instead of saying that they have been successful in creating a bipartisan tone in Congress over judges?

Perhaps the answer is in another fact. I have been very surprised that the Supreme Court conservatives, like O'Conner and Rhenquist have not retired during Bush's* tenure. I was willing to attribute it to they aggregious error they made in appoint Bush* as President, hence the asterisk.

But, even this error should not stop them if they see the writing on the wall for Bush's* re-election. Frankly, it is now pretty much too late for them to retire. The only way they could is if Bush* was allowed a speedy nomination and approval process for a replacement.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Perhaps the conservative justices, when querried by the administration as to why they won't retire while they can confidently be replaced by a conservative have responded that, as long as the Democrats have the ability to obstruct a nominee, they won't retire, leaving open the possibility that Bush's* successor will get to appoint a moderate or, worse, a liberal. When asked what will satisfy them to allow them to retire, they respond, "Break the Democrat's filibuster."

I have not evidence of this, but I believe it is in the character of all of these players. All the more reason why the Democrats in the Senate can not give up.

What can we do? Write your senators. Call your senators. Write them all! Tell them what you think. Beyond that, if you're a praying person, this might be a good time for one! :)

Keo

Even Specter voted against the Bork nomination. Why is Toomey running in the Republican primary in Pennsylvania?

Senators like Chafee, Snowe, and Collins would vote against the ideal, ultimate Bush nominee. They don't feel secure enough to get him/her to the Supeme Court just yet.

They want another Bork, that's what they want.

Nuff said.

Yes, they don't feel secure. These kind will never feel secure, and rightly so. What will Rhenquist and O'Conner do if by next Summer Bush* looks like his goose is cooked? How awkward for them, eh?

And "GREED" is correct, but I don't think it's 'nuff said.' Because they also demonstrate PRIDE (only they know the truth), SLOTH (not willing to send their own children into war, or go themselves), GLUTTONY (never enough power, i.e. 168-4!), and the list goes on.

Edit: corrected spelling

I think that they have decided against retiring in Bush's first term because of what happened over the election. If they retire during the term of the president they essentially selected, that would look very very bad.

So I think they will wait until after this election.

Which means that if we win this thing (election). We'll get to replace two conservative judges.

WooHoo.

I personally feel that they are not interested in how they 'look'. Otherwise, they would never have appointed Bush*. These smart people know exactly what they are doing. I think it is more reasonable to think that they are not retiring because they don't think the senate will confirm an appointment BECAUSE of their decision in Bush v. Gore, which took that judgement, reserved for the Congress by the Constitution, away from them.