The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Nominate a Bush Judge!

The Largest Selection of Liberal-baiting Merchandise on the Net!

Today, National Review Online makes an eloquent case for Obama to renominate a Bush judicial nominee. I had made virtually the same case last week in the Examiner. Several other bloggers have picked up the call, including Jonathan Adler and Ed Whelan at Bench memos (also NRO) the excellent Orin Kerr over at the Volokh Conspiracy and the always on-target Curt Levey at the Committee for Justice, who noted that the Wall Street Journal made a similar argument back in November. So I hereby dub this movement a real "groundswell," and it might be worthwhile for readers and bloggers to make the ground swell even more.

Comments

Martin | 1.13.09 @ 12:21AM

One rule starting January 20

b NO BUSHIES EVER.

We don't need no stinkin' heckofajobs whose only qualification is loving Bush.

Mom| 1.13.09 @ 12:26AM

We're supposed to believe that Bush is bipartisan?

Joke of the millenium.

The guy who hired Gone-zales to remove all attorneys who were actually honest and would investigate both sides with the same vigor or lack of.

"Fool me once , can't fool me again" George Dumbya Bush.

Deborah| 1.13.09 @ 5:12AM

I wouldn't hold my breath. "Bipartisanship" is a word used only when Democrats want something from Republicans. It doesn't usually work the other way. Dems are like wild animals in that if you show weakness, they go for the jugular. That's why although Bush tried to offer some Clinton appointees in a gesture of bipartisanship, the Dems took it as weakness and wouldn't even allow many Bush appointees an up or down vote.

Indiana Alex| 1.13.09 @ 9:21AM

Ah, Mom, would it have been better had Bush fired all US Attorneys a la Clinton?

Or just the ones that seemed to be missing a bunch of corruption, like in New Mexico, where the the new US Atty seems to be making ground on the Bill Richardson issues.

Now go finish the laundry and watch your stories, you know that's much more your speed.