What's Next After Sandra Day O'Connor? - Page 2

[Cross Posted at Watching Washington]

Page 1 — Page 2

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own
  • No image found

Article comments

  • 1 - Aaman

    Jul 01, 2005 at 11:04 am

    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?

  • 2 - Terry Turner

    Jul 01, 2005 at 12:02 pm

    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.

  • 3 - Eric Olsen

    Jul 01, 2005 at 12:08 pm

    they were all "e's" - I changed them

  • 4 - Terry Turner

    Jul 01, 2005 at 12:21 pm

    Thanks Eric.

    I'm a bit dyslectic -- seriously.

  • 5 - Lisa Iannucci

    Jul 01, 2005 at 12:25 pm

    actually, the word is "dyslexic"...

    Lisa I., your humble Politics editor

  • 6 - Eric Olsen

    Jul 01, 2005 at 12:26 pm

    Terry, I understand, just please go over spelling carefully before and after publishing, especially names.

  • 7 - JR

    Jul 01, 2005 at 12:30 pm

    Dyslectic is when you get your theses and antitheses mixed up.

  • 8 - Aaman

    Jul 01, 2005 at 12:32 pm

    Like your dialectic and your analectic? That would make some people apopoletic

  • 9 - Mark Saleski

    Jul 01, 2005 at 12:34 pm

    i'm a dyslexic atheist...i don't believe in dog.

    hardy, har, har.

  • 10 - Steve S

    Jul 01, 2005 at 12:38 pm

    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?

  • 11 - Terry Turner

    Jul 01, 2005 at 12:56 pm

    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.

  • 12 - JR

    Jul 01, 2005 at 12:57 pm

    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'.

  • 13 - Aaman

    Jul 01, 2005 at 1:04 pm

    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

  • 14 - Aaman

    Jul 01, 2005 at 1:09 pm

    Also, he would give the impression of not being 'deliberate and thorough' if he nominates someone too soon.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.