I know that, but mierin's post insinuated that Bush v. Gore was decided because the Justices wanted to repay Bush Sr. for appointing them--which on the face of it is simply wrong. The real point is that we've generally passed the days when Supreme Court Justices are appointed out of a sense of patronage on the part of the President. Johnson (Fortas, Goldberg) and Nixon (Burger, possibly Rehnquist) were really the last Presidents who engaged in that kind of backscratching. Although, come to think of it, President Clinton wanted to appoint George Mitchell, but Mitchell declined. All the names being thrown around as potential Bush nominees are of sitting judges who probably don't even know Bush, albeit Gonzales, who's a White House counsel, has been included in some of those lists.

Forgive Mierin her foreign-ness... though looking at Bush V. Gore it split pretty evenly on the courts ideological lines - basically it seems most justices sided with whom they'd rather retire under - a dubious grounds for a legal descision to be sure, but not enought to totally shake my general good opinion of the court.

Of course, the Eldred V. Ashcroft descision yesterday did that for me...



Keith (NOT BACK)
One always dies too soon-- or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are-- your life, and nothing else. - Garcin, No Exit