NOW declares 'state of emergency,' plans march after news of O'Connor's retirement

AP ^ | July 2, 2005 | Rose French

[ConservativeGadfly]

NOW declares 'state of emergency,' plans march after news of O'Connor's retirement

ASSOCIATED PRESS

ROSE FRENCH

Sat July 2, 2005 09:41 EDT

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) _ The president of the National Organization for Women declared a ``state of emergency'' for women's rights and planned a march on the state Capitol as news of Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement reverberated through the group's annual convention.

NOW president Kim Gandy told about 800 NOW members Friday that women need to send a message that they won't tolerate ``extremist'' judges who set back women's rights.

``This is our time. This is our challenge,'' Gandy said as the crowd replied by clapping and chanting, ``Hell no, we won't go'' and ``We won't go back.''

The group shifted the agenda for their three-day convention to include a march to the Tennessee Capitol on Saturday to ``make sure Senator Frist and all senators are going to hear our voices. We're going to march on every Capitol in this country,'' Gandy said.

The first woman on the Supreme Court, O'Connor was often the swing vote on 5-4 decisions supporting abortion, affirmative action and other contentious social issues. Her retirement leaves Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only woman on the court.

Gandy and former NOW president Eleanor Smeal, now president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, praised O'Connor as a moderate.

``Twenty-four years ago, as president of the National Organization for Women, I testified for Sandra Day O'Connor before the Senate Judiciary Committee,'' Smeal said. ``I knew then that O'Connor, although a conservative voice, would be one who would not permit the elimination of women's fundamental rights, including the right to privacy.''

Gandy said the group fears ``a nominee along the lines of some of the extremist judges that have been put on the appellate court by George Bush.''

NOW members are set to elect their president Saturday night. Gandy, elected in 2001, is being challenged by Rosemary J. Dempsey, a Connecticut lawyer who's held several national and state leadership roles since joining NOW in 1970.

Dempsey wants to focus on attracting younger members and opposing President Bush's economic agenda, which she says inflicts disproportionate harm on women.

``We were effective in the 70s, and we're effective now,'' Dempsey said. ``But there has been a backlash. Most young women don't know about NOW these days. If NOW is visible and relevant where they (young members) live, that's what makes NOW powerful.''

___

[ConservativeGadfly]

Any TN freepers out there busy today?

[goldstategop]

HAHAHAHAHA! The NOW NAGs are worried about "extremist judges" huh? If President Bush nominates any one other than a media-McCain-Lieberman approved moderate, then I'll take the feminazi frightfest seriously.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[RckyRaCoCo]

NOW members are set to elect their president Saturday night.

Maybe someone should go there and throw Laura Ingram's name in the hat. That would twist their panties boxer shorts.

[nina0113]

I just want one of them to go to take pictures of the six protestors who actually show up.

[Dad yer funny]

just think ,... all summer , with this S**T

[cripplecreek]

It still cracks me up that Tammy Bruce was a closet republican when she was NOW president.

[TADSLOS]

Wow, and I thought NOW was too busy beating back centuries of women's rights neglect and abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq... Whoda' thunk they had time to get to Nashville?

[ConservativeGadfly]

Does anyone find it ironic that it was a TN Republican legislator that gave women a one vote margin to pass the amendment that GAVE WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE?????

Sigh. Nutty. These gals are just nutty.

[wingman1]

I live in East TN, but know quite a few conservative activists in the Nashville area. TnEagle Forum is pretty active with the legislature and many, as you may recall, showed up at Legislative Plaza during the attempt to institute an income tax. I wouldn't be surprised to see some FReepers show up.

[You Dirty Rats]

NOW jumped the shark when they remained silent over Bubba's sexual issues. They are irrelevant.

[BW2221]

Most of the "women" in NOW are as old as the Supreme Court justices.

Were it not for the abortions, Gloria Steinem would be a great grandmother by now.

[26lemoncharlie]

Yes, they really showed their asses on during that Clinton revelation!! National Organization for (Clinton's)Whores!

[FReepaholic]

A Liberal 10-Step Plan for Judicial Character Assassination

[dfwgator]

Bunch of lesbos, who don't have to worry about unwanted pregnancies, marching for abortion?!? Beam me up.

[Admin Moderator]

To prevent duplicates, please do not alter the heading. Thanks.

[Renegade]

My WIFE said this is idiotic. She stated that anyone who gets pregnant by mistake?? today with all the birth control available is STUPID!!!

[Reactionary]

A state of emergency?

How about a state of idiot liberal hysteria?

[Gritty]

What is telling is how important a single unelected-but-installed-for-life Supreme Court Justice is to the agenda of Liberals. Elected representatives don't matter and an elected President really doesn't matter either. Instead, what really matters is some unelected judge who makes all the difference in the world. This little legal cabal of nine lawyers has been ceded the ability to trump everything else in America.

If that doesn't prove the Supreme Court has evolved into a "rule by oligarchy" branch of the government which is the most powerful of all three, I don't know what does!

[Loud Mime]

State of Emergency for this retirement?

What time of the month is it for NOW?

[bert]

Can't come but If I could my sign would say "NOW WAS"

[Let's Roll]

Yes, they are.

If they were really interested in gaining or at least holding ground, instead of using this as an excuse to raise more money from their idiot followers, they would work quietly behind the scenes instead of playing the "confrontation card" and showcasing their irrelevance.

[small voice in the wilderness]

``We were effective in the 70s, and we're effective now,''

Not since clinton quivered his 1996 post election "I am still relevant" lamentation have I heard such a pitiful boasting. With boobs now sagging around the knees and the glory days of choice being replaced by not on a bet, lady, they pull on their Depends, dust off their old protest signs, and threaten us once again with screeches of unhappiness and revolution. They aborted their future and still have no sense of the irony. And like every miserable human who has ever inhabited this earth, they seek to destroy what they cannot fathom. Namely, the three most important words in this world are NOT I I I, me me me, mine mine mine.

[Fido969]

I just want one of them to go to take pictures of the six protestors who actually show up.

I think there should be a pro-life rally at the same time. No matter how many show up for that, you know the MSM would focus on the fems.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Or:

"HOW NOW pink NAG COW?"

[oldbrowser]

NOW jumped the shark when they remained silent over Bubba's sexual issues. They are irrelevant.

Bubba is only one of many issues that they have ducked.

I think we all understand that NOW is just a front for the Abortion mills,........ nothing more, nothing less.

[GarySpFc]

``This is our time. This is our challenge,'' Gandy said as the crowd replied by clapping and chanting, ``Hell no, we won't go'' and ``We won't go back.''

Talk, talk, talk. Most Freepers are all too aware of the MSM lies. However, it may surprise you to know they have the same problem in Russia, and the MSM hear supports them. It may further surprise you to know in Russia the average woman had 12 to 15 abortions. However, Putin signed into law a bill last year which blocked abortion after 12 weeks.

[RetroSexual]

just think ,... all summer , with this S**T

I know...it's going to be hilarious! Hillary-ous?

[Dad yer funny]

yup , let's see what Sir Edmund Hillary Clinton does

[Drew68]

NOW jumped the shark when they remained silent over Bubba's sexual issues. They are irrelevant.

Exactly. But they sure raged with righteous indignation of Bob Packwood and he was one of the few pro-choice Republicans.

[syriacus]

Smeal said: `I knew [24 years ago] that O'Connor, although a conservative voice, would be one who would not permit the elimination of women's fundamental rights, including the right to privacy.''

Ranchers have the right to "put down" their animals.

I once met a gal from a ranch,
Whose logic could make a babe blanch.
She confused NOW's word "chattel"
With HER most fav'rite word "cattle"
NOW -- how can the bloodflow be stanched?

[purpleland]

I heard a man who called-in to a Talk Radio show hysterically wail:

"We are going to lose our abortion rights and our rights to die."

That necrophiliac *man* was stricken by the "state of emergency"! I hope he exercises his right to an abortion before its too late, and then thinks deeply about exercising his right to die...before its too late.
(???)

[purpleland]

Why in the HELL do these egocentric NOW members believe that Abortion is the ONLY SIGNIFICANT national issue? That the ONLY threat to freedom is not being able to abort when in the third term of pregnancy which is infanticide?

Silly and self-absorbed ghouls.

[syriacus]

oldbrowser wrote: NOW is just a front for the Abortion mills,

I agree.

The MSM is going hog-wild, lauding O'Connor's "Lazy-B" brand of ranch-bred "practicality"

Though the practical approach might be fine when dealing with cattle, we should demand more than mere practicality when dealing with people.

Slaughterhouses might be fine for killing cattle and pigs, but are not okay for killing vulnerable humans.

[syriacus]

That necrophiliac *man* was stricken by the "state of emergency"!

What a crazy man.

I'd say he sounds "scared to death," but he obviously is super confused about what the threat is and where the threat is coming from.

He is his own worst enemy.

If he's afraid someone is going to threaten him, he shouldn't turn right to face his enemy. He should turn left and view the people that are approaching from that direction. They are well-armed with medical instruments, and are ready to use them on helpless, hapless humans.

His attitude is emboldening those folks.

[X-Ecutioner]

I find it strange the left thinks she embodies conservatism...

[Soul Seeker]

``Hell no, we won't go''

::sigh: How about investing in some new slogans? This is cliched to the point it is lame.

[purpleland]

That necrophiliac *man* was stricken by the "state of emergency"!
What a crazy man.

I'd say he sounds "scared to death," but he obviously is super confused about what the threat is and where the threat is coming from.

He is his own worst enemy.

If he's afraid someone is going to threaten him, he shouldn't turn right to face his enemy. He should turn left and view the people that are approaching from that direction. They are well-armed with medical instruments, and are ready to use them on helpless, hapless humans.

His attitude is emboldening those folks.

***Well said. He's a "willing fool"... I just cannot get over that he fears losing his abortion rights!

[syriacus]

I just cannot get over that he fears losing his abortion rights!

He's quite a memorable guy, all right.

[syriacus]

I find it strange the left thinks she embodies conservatism...

The Left loves to pretend she does.

They know that, in reality, O'Connor saddled up the USSC to lasso the Constitution and drag it off into the sunset.

[nwrep]

It still cracks me up that Tammy Bruce was a closet republican when she was NOW president.

She was only the president of the Los Angeles chapter, not national.

[ken21]

you have to wonder where they were during the clinton administration?

[BlessedBeGod]

NOW president Kim Gandy told about 800 NOW members...

And that's about all they have, too!

[victim soul]

Gandy and former NOW president Eleanor Smeal, now president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, praised O'Connor as a moderate. This is what a "MAINSTREAM MODERATE" supports -- as taken from Stenberg v Carhart testimony to the Supreme Court in the Partial Birth Abortion Law they support: " 2. Approximately 10% of all abortions are performed during the second trimester of pregnancy (12 to 24 weeks). Abortion Surveillance 41. In the early 1970's, inducing labor through the injection of saline into the uterus was the predominant method of second trimester abortion. Id., at 8; Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 76 (1976). Today, however, the medical profession has switched from medical induction of labor to surgical procedures for most second trimester abortions. The most commonly used procedure is called "dilation and evacuation" (D&E). That procedure (together with a modified form of vacuum aspiration used in the early second trimester) accounts for about 95% of all abortions performed from 12 to 20 weeks of gestational age. Abortion Surveillance 41. 3. D&E "refers generically to transcervical procedures performed at 13 weeks gestation or later." American Medical Association, Report of Board of Trustees on Late-Term Abortion, App. 490 (hereinafter AMA Report). The AMA Report, adopted by the District Court, describes the process as follows. Between 13 and 15 weeks of gestation: "D&E; is similar to vacuum aspiration except that the cervix must be dilated more widely because surgical instruments are used to remove larger pieces of tissue. Osmotic dilators are usually used. Intravenous fluids and an analgesic or sedative may be administered. A local anesthetic such as a paracervical block may be administered, dilating agents, if used, are removed and instruments are inserted through the cervix into the uterus to removal fetal and placental tissue. Because fetal tissue is friable and easily broken, the fetus may not be removed intact. The walls of the uterus are scraped with a curette to ensure that no tissue remains." Id., at 490-491. After 15 weeks: "Because the fetus is larger at this stage of gestation (particularly the head), and because bones are more rigid, dismemberment or other destructive procedures are more likely to be required than at earlier gestational ages to remove fetal and placental tissue." Id., at 491. After 20 weeks: "Some physicians use intrafetal potassium chloride or digoxin to induce fetal demise prior to a late D&E (after 20 weeks), to facilitate evacuation." Id., at 491-492. There are variations in D&E operative strategy; compare ibid. with W. Hern, Abortion Practice 146-156 (1984), and Medical and Surgical Abortion 133-135. However, the common points are that D&E involves (1) dilation of the cervix; (2) removal of at least some fetal tissue using nonvacuum instruments; and (3) (after the 15th week) the potential need for instrumental disarticulation or dismemberment of the fetus or the collapse of fetal parts to facilitate evacuation from the uterus. 4. When instrumental disarticulation incident to D&E is necessary, it typically occurs as the doctor pulls a portion of the fetus through the cervix into the birth canal. Dr. Carhart testified at trial as follows: "Dr. Carhart: ... `The dismemberment occurs between the traction of ... my instrument and the counter-traction of the internal os of the cervix ... . "Counsel: `So the dismemberment occurs after you pulled a part of the fetus through the cervix, is that correct? "Dr. Carhart: `Exactly. Because you're using--The cervix has two strictures or two rings, the internal os and the external os ... that's what's actually doing the dismembering... . "Counsel: `When we talked before or talked before about a D&E, that is not--where there is not intention to do it intact, do you, in that situation, dismember the fetus in utero first, then remove portions? "Dr. Carhart: `I don't think so. ... I don't know of any way that one could go in and intentionally dismember the fetus in the uterus. ... It takes something that restricts the motion of the fetus against what you're doing before you're going to get dismemberment.' " 11 F. Supp. 2d, at 1104. Dr. Carhart's specification of the location of fetal disarticulation is consistent with other sources. See Medical and Surgical Abortion 135; App. in Nos. 98-3245 and 98-3300 (CA8), p. 683, (testimony of Dr. Phillip Stubblefield) ("Q: So you don't actually dismember the fetus in utero, then take the pieces out? A: No"). 5. The D&E procedure carries certain risks. The use of instruments within the uterus creates a danger of accidental perforation and damage to neighboring organs. Sharp fetal bone fragments create similar dangers. And fetal tissue accidentally left behind can cause infection and various other complications. See 11 F. Supp. 2d, at 1110; Gynecologic, Obstetric, and Related Surgery 1045 (D. Nichols & D. Clarke-Pearson eds. 2d ed. 2000); F. Cunningham et al., Williams Obstetrics 598 (20th ed. 1997). Nonetheless studies show that the risks of mortality and complication that accompany the D&E procedure between the 12th and 20th weeks of gestation are significantly lower than those accompanying induced labor procedures (the next safest midsecond trimester procedures). See Gynecologic, Obstetric, and Related Surgery, supra, at 1046; AMA Report, App. 495, 496; Medical and Surgical Abortion 139, 142; Lawson, 171 Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., at 1368. 6. At trial, Dr. Carhart and Dr. Stubblefield described a variation of the D&E procedure, which they referred to as an "intact D&E" See 11 F. Supp. 2d, at 1105, 1111. Like other versions of the D&E technique, it begins with induced dilation of the cervix. The procedure then involves removing the fetus from the uterus through the cervix "intact," i.e., in one pass, rather than in several passes. Ibid. It is used after 16 weeks at the earliest, as vacuum aspiration becomes ineffective and the fetal skull becomes too large to pass through the cervix. Id., at 1105. The intact D&E proceeds in one of two ways, depending on the presentation of the fetus. If the fetus presents head first (a vertex presentation), the doctor collapses the skull; and the doctor then extracts the entire fetus through the cervix. If the fetus presents feet first (a breech presentation), the doctor pulls the fetal body through the cervix, collapses the skull, and extracts the fetus through the cervix. Ibid. The breech extraction version of the intact D&E is also known commonly as "dilation and extraction," or D&X Id., at 1112. In the late second trimester, vertex, breech, and traverse/compound (sideways) presentations occur in roughly similar proportions. Medical and Surgical Abortion 135; 11 F. Supp. 2d, at 1108. " DON STENBERG, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEBRASKA, et al., PETITIONERS v. LEROY CARHART on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit [June 28, 2000] Justice O'Connor, concurring. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-830 The issue of abortion is one of the most contentious and controversial in contemporary American society. It presents extraordinarily difficult questions that, as the Court recognizes, involve "virtually irreconcilable points of view." Ante, at 1. The specific question we face today is whether Nebraska's attempt to proscribe a particular method of abortion, commonly known as "partial-birth abortion," is constitutional. For the reasons stated in the Court's opinion, I agree that Nebraska's statute cannot be reconciled with our decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), and is therefore unconstitutional. I write separately to emphasize the following points. First, the Nebraska statute is inconsistent with Casey because it lacks an exception for those instances when the banned procedure is necessary to preserve the health of the mother. See id., at 879 (joint opinion of O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ.). Importantly, Nebraska's own statutory scheme underscores this constitutional infirmity. As we held in Casey, prior to viability "the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy." Id., at 870. After the fetus has become viable, States may substantially regulate and even proscribe abortion, but any such regulation or proscription must contain an exception for instances " `where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.' " Id., at 879 (quoting Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 165 (1973)). Nebraska has recognized this constitutional limitation in its separate statute generally proscribing postviability abortions. See Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-329 (Supp. 1999). That statute provides that "[n]o abortion shall be performed after the time at which, in the sound medical judgment of the attending physician, the unborn child clearly appears to have reached viability, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother." Ibid. (emphasis added). Because even a postviability proscription of abortion would be invalid absent a health exception, Nebraska's ban on previability partial-birth abortions, under the circumstances presented here, must include a health exception as well, since the State's interest in regulating abortions before viability is "considerably weaker" than after viability. Ante, at 11. The statute at issue here, however, only excepts those procedures "necessary to save the life of the mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury." Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-328(1) (Supp. 1999). This lack of a health exception necessarily renders the statute unconstitutional. Contrary to the assertions of Justice Kennedy and Justice Thomas, the need for a health exception does not arise from "the individual views of Dr. Carhart and his supporters." Post, at 14 (Kennedy, J., dissenting); see also post, at 35-36 (Thomas, J., dissenting). Rather, as the majority explains, where, as here, "a significant body of medical opinion believes a procedure may bring with it greater safety for some patients and explains the medical reasons supporting that view," ante, at 19, then Nebraska cannot say that the procedure will not, in some circumstances, be "necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother." Accordingly, our precedent requires that the statute include a health exception. Second, Nebraska's statute is unconstitutional on the alternative and independent ground that it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before viability. Nebraska's ban covers not just the dilation and extraction (D&X) procedure, but also the dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure, "the most commonly used method for performing previability second trimester abortions." Ante, at 27. The statute defines the banned procedure as "deliberately and intentionally delivering into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure that the person performing such procedure knows will kill the unborn child and does kill the unborn child." Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-326(9) (Supp. 1999) (emphasis added). As the Court explains, the medical evidence establishes that the D&E procedure is included in this definition. Thus, it is not possible to interpret the statute's language as applying only to the D&X procedure. Moreover, it is significant that both the District Court and the Court of Appeals interpreted the statute as prohibiting abortions performed using the D&E method as well as the D&X method. See 192 F. 3d 1142, 1150 (CA8 1999); 11 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1127-1131 (Neb. 1998). We have stated on several occasions that we ordinarily defer to the construction of a state statute given it by the lower federal courts unless such a construction amounts to plain error. See, e.g., Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 346 (1976) ("[T]his Court has accepted the interpretation of state law in which the District Court and the Court of Appeals have concurred even if an examination of the state-law issue without such guidance might have justified a different conclusion"); The Tungus v. Skovgaard, 358 U. S. 588, 596 (1959). Such deference is not unique to the abortion context, but applies generally to state statutes addressing all areas of the law. See, e.g., UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America v. Ward, 526 U. S. 358, 368 (1999) ("notice-prejudice" rule in state insurance law); Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U. S. 491, 499 (1985) (moral nuisance law); Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160, 181 (1976) (statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Bishop v. Wood, supra, at 346, n. 10 (city employment ordinance). Given this construction, the statute is impermissible. Indeed, Nebraska conceded at oral argument that "the State could not prohibit the D&E procedure." Tr. of Oral Arg. 10. By proscribing the most commonly used method for previability second trimester abortions, see ante, at 5, the statute creates a "substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion," Casey, supra, at 884, and therefore imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy prior to viability. It is important to note that, unlike Nebraska, some other States have enacted statutes more narrowly tailored to proscribing the D&X procedure alone. Some of those statutes have done so by specifically excluding from their coverage the most common methods of abortion, such as the D&E and vacuum aspiration procedures. For example, the Kansas statute states that its ban does not apply to the "(A) [s]uction curettage abortion procedure; (B) suction aspiration abortion procedure; or (C) dilation and evacuation abortion procedure involving dismemberment of the fetus prior to removal from the body of the pregnant woman." Kan Stat. Ann. §65-6721(b)(2) (Supp. 1998). The Utah statute similarly provides that its prohibition "does not include the dilation and evacuation procedure involving dismemberment prior to removal, the suction curettage procedure, or the suction aspiration procedure for abortion." Utah Code Ann. §76-7-310.5(1)(a) (1999). Likewise, the Montana statute defines the banned procedure as one in which "(A) the living fetus is removed intact from the uterus until only the head remains in the uterus; (B) all or a part of the intracranial contents of the fetus are evacuated; (C) the head of the fetus is compressed; and (D) following fetal demise, the fetus is removed from the birth canal." Mont. Code Ann. §50-20-401(3)(c)(ii) (Supp. 1999). By restricting their prohibitions to the D&X procedure exclusively, the Kansas, Utah, and Montana statutes avoid a principal defect of the Nebraska law. If Nebraska's statute limited its application to the D&X procedure and included an exception for the life and health of the mother, the question presented would be quite different than the one we face today. As we held in Casey, an abortion regulation constitutes an undue burden if it "has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." 505 U. S., at 877. If there were adequate alternative methods for a woman safely to obtain an abortion before viability, it is unlikely that prohibiting the D&X procedure alone would "amount in practical terms to a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion." Id., at 884. Thus, a ban on partial-birth abortion that only proscribed the D&X method of abortion and that included an exception to preserve the life and health of the mother would be constitutional in my view. Nebraska's statute, however, does not meet these criteria. It contains no exception for when the procedure, in appropriate medical judgment, is necessary to preserve the health of the mother; and it proscribes not only the D&X procedure but also the D&E procedure, the most commonly used method for previability second trimester abortions, thus making it an undue burden on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. For these reasons, I agree with the Court that Nebraska's law is unconstitutional.

[Stultis]

The group shifted the agenda for their three-day convention to include a march to the Tennessee Capitol on Saturday to ``make sure Senator Frist and all senators are going to hear our voices. We're going to march on every Capitol in this country,'' Gandy said.

Found a pic of the first march:

[steenkeenbadges]

NOW - Nattering Old Witches.

[incredulous joe]

"It still cracks me up that Tammy Bruce was a closet republican when she was NOW president."

I don't know that she's Republican, but definitely intellectually honest,...certainly conservative. As far as lesbians go, she's my favorite.

[incredulous joe]

Udderly unnecessary.

[wrathof59]

NOW had most of their future members aborted, they are killing off their own legacies. idiots.

[Bush gal in LA]

Oh that is too funny! Someone said that the DU dummies have also declared a state of emergency and are now actively looking for bodies to come to Washington. To do what? Are they going to lay down on the court house steps and block traffic if a conservative is appointed to the court or what? They can hold their rallies or hold their breath until they are blue but what are these people so afraid of?

[alessandrofiaschi]

I'm asking whether we, the conservative, should be limited to a short list of well-known candidates (Judges or Professors of Law), "suggested" by media. When O'Connor was elevated to the Supreme Court, she was an unknown woman of Texas. So, it could be reasonable that another unknown (but loyal) conservative is going to be appointed soon. I'm quite sure we have a lot of (young) potential nominees, which President Bush is considering for that job.