[Cross Posted at Watching Washington]
Visit Terry Turner's author page
— Terry Turner's Blog
The least you can do is spell her name right - it is "O'Connor" - helps in the Google search, besides showing that you do some proof reading.
Also, what's happening in 6 hours to require the nomination?
Gee, Aaman, missed one "e."
The White House wants a quick nomination to stave off efforts to blunt their nomination.
Six hours is what everyone's been talking about as the White House reaction time for a couple of weeks now.
they were all "e's" - I changed them
I'm a bit dyslectic -- seriously.
actually, the word is "dyslexic"...
Lisa I., your humble Politics editor
Terry, I understand, just please go over spelling carefully before and after publishing, especially names.
Dyslectic is when you get your theses and antitheses mixed up.
Like your dialectic and your analectic? That would make some people apopoletic
i'm a dyslexic atheist...i don't believe in dog.
hardy, har, har.
someone told me that if there wasn't anybody retiring until the fall, then a nomination couldn't go through until the next election anyway, and all we (liberals) had to do was hope no one retires before the fall.
Does it take that long for a nomination?
How does the process change if Bush nominates someone in 6 hours or in 6 days?
The time really plays into the politics. The idea is if you get someone out there fast, you don't have the other side defining the debate the way they want to.
But the White House now says President Bush will wait until July 8 to make a nomination.
A conservative group has already been airing TV commercials in some markets defining the debate -- so expect more of that sort of thing until we really know the person up for nomination.
The White House has a "short-list." With the delay, they may let the debate simmer, allow public opinion to gel, then play to that or nominate someone who blows the left's arguments out of the water -- making them start from scratch.
If they give people enough time to mull over the candidates, we can debate their merits without being accused of anti-Bush bias. If he throws up a nominee right away, anybody who criticizes his choice can be painted as 'obstructionist'.
Here's what's missing in this post - the factoid that Justice O'Connor has retired - one had no clue until I switched to a news site. A report needs to state the facts, not assume the readers know them.
Otherwise, fine report
Also, he would give the impression of not being 'deliberate and thorough' if he nominates someone too soon.