1 Thanks for the link Chad. I think it was a really bold and wise move on Bush's part.

2 Test.

3 Hey folks, I'm having computer problems. Can't login to the server for some reason. *sigh*

4 Damn, every time liberals think they're going to get to stage a coup, W just puts the smack down on 'em. It's so funny. I wonder how many bottles of rye Teddy had to down to deal with the news?

5 Actually, I was a little perturbed at the news because I wanted Scalia to move up to Chief Justice. But after listening to a few other people, I've changed my mind. Well, at the very least, I'll have to rethink it. Scalia is good. Damn good. But will he get better by being moved up? No. One guy said, "...there is reason to believe that Roberts could be a more effective CJ, because he would be better able to build consensus, win people over (to the conservative position!)." Presumably because he has no history on the high court and may be able, more easily, to bring them to a concensus as an outsider. Maybe that's true, but we're still dealing with an unknown. Is he liberal or conservative? He has a pretty good balance of liberal and conservative causes he has argued in his past (as far as I can see). Is he what we hope he is? Or is he a sheep in wolves' clothing? We got lucky with Rehnquist's quick leap into the Chief Justice position. Can we be that lucky again?

6 Correct me if I am wrong here, but with Roberts as Chief Justice, he will hold that position until he retires. Isn't he much younger than Scalia? With that in mind, this would mean a conservative Chief Justice for the next 20 or so years. To me that's good news.

7 Sure it's good news. But no one seems to be absolutely sure that he is, in fact, conservative. And that's not even the really important part. As long as he's an originalist, I'm happy. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and the law "as it is written". Not to legislate from the bench, which is what liberals seem to think is okay. You know ... "the Constitution is a living document", to evolve with the progressive agenda and all that claptrap? Meh. (Claptrap is my new favorite word. I highly recommend its broad use.)

8 "That is, unless Senate Democrats decide to throw a big stink into the situation. They wouldn't do that though, would they?" Is a bear Catholic? Does the Pope s**t in the woods? (apologies to Steve Martin)

9 I have to take issue with one thing that I hear a lot: everyone keeps saying that it's the court's job to interpret the Constitution, but I disagree, it's their job to apply the Constitution. Use of the word "interpret" somehow implies that the Constitution is so abstract as to be beyond the comprehension of We the People, but it isn't. In fact, it's quite simple and straightforward in its language, and the thought that interpretation is needed is simply a liberal trick to make people divest themselves of just a little more power to the courts, which the liberals have been trying to control for decades now, and not without success. The Constitution is a template for just governance, against which all actions of government must be measured, and does not need a Rosetta stone or divine revelation for its usage.

10 I think Scalia deserves the position. How will being Chief Justice make Roberts a better "consensus-builder"?

11 Ann Coulter is not at all pleased with the Roberts nomination. She thinks that he could just as easily be another David Souter than he could be another Clarence Thomas. What do all you Roberts boosters know about him that Coulter doesn't?