supreme court
 

it tells a lot about where we are in 2010 compared to 1975 that following 2 obama nominations, this court will be more conservative than it was when he came into office.

it's guaranteed that, despite the predicable hysteria from conservatives about whomever is nominated, we won't see a more liberal nominee than center-right (in 1975) justice stevens.

Unless I get nominated..I am from Chicago and will be using my connections

No more guns, god or praying on my tax dollar. Scalia will be cowering and Glenn Beck will be in a forced marriage with Sara Palin

and you'll still be at the ass end of a lot of 6-3 and 5-4 decisions.

He is talking about replacing JP Stevens not O Guillen

Joe Nathan is tough to beat..





oh

I would pay $1,000 "Chicago dollars" to see that :rolleyes:

Jon Rauch, you cant stop him, you can only hope to contain him!

If you think your team has it bad just look at Baltimore. They signed Mike Gonzalez for a 2 year/12 million dollar contract and 4 games into the season he has blown 2 games and got booed off the mound. Didnt even make it to the weekend...

Charm city is a tough place. 12 million for a closer for a rebuilding team that won't contend. Angelos is the one that needs to be booed. Then again, at least he is starting to spend some money again.

Justice Stephens lied through his teeth when he was being vetted.

yes, unless Obama can get another crackpot like him
oh wait what the hell am I saying
of course whoever he picks will be left of left left left-center

lol. as if justices were "vetted" in the same sense we have today back in 1975.

and how would you possibly know what he said in response to whatever questions he was asked before he was chosen back then? is there even a record?

don't get so twisted up in your own political philosophy that you have to make up facts.

oh wait. what the hell am i saying? of course you'll do that.

John...he passed 98-0

He must have been a helluva liar

Probably not, which is too bad, as I think the replacement should maintain the balance.

I think they looked at it more like $12 million for a mid level closer because we have a young staff and having leads blown late doesnt exactly help their development. Truthfully it was a pretty good deal, $6 million is hardly big money for an established closer, the 2 years is even better. Of course that is based on MG not throwing fastballs right down the middle.

Here's how the whole process will go (I wish I could take credit for this list):

A conservative columnist piece slamming the first nominee the Obama White House floats. This will be based entirely on unnamed sources.

Republicans find some routine case and trot it out as an example of how activist the nominee is.

Washington Post columnists write that, while the Republicans are taking it all too far, there are indeed legitimate problems with the nominee’s judicial philosophy.

If the nominee is anything other than a white, Christian, heterosexual male, discussions on CNN's "The Situation Room" about whether the nominee is capable of rendering unbiased decisions.

Rahm Emanuel spends three months trying to convince Olympia Snowe and Lindsey Graham to support the nominee.

Olympia Snowe and Lindsey Graham do not support the nominee.

There is a lengthy GOP filibuster.

NYTimes columnist David Brooks writes about how sad it is that Democrats have destroyed the Senate’s comity and that Obama needs to renominate Robert Bork as a goodwill gesture.