Kristol is wrong, about the Republican majority splitting upi over a candidate that "might" overturn Roe. As a couple of the swinging Republican seven have said - "judicial philosophy" is not "an extraordinary circumstance".
And the key to whether or not Roe "might" be overturned does not require a record that indicates the candidate would overturn Roe. The candidate may have nothing in their "track record" to indicate exactly how they would vote on Roe; and there is good reason and precendent in the hearing process to not answer that question directly.
The key is whether or not the candidate will defend and upholds the constitution, as opposed to re-writing it, or not. In other words, an "orginalist". And if I hear at least two of the slippery seven Reps, they will not accept the candidacy of an orginalist as extraordinary circumstances.
Kritol is a lib looking for "balance", which to a liberal means a five to four liberal majority.
Clinton got two very liberal appointments: Breyer and Ginzburg.
Clinton didn't appoint a squishy moderate. Clinton didn't have any doubts that both of his Supreme Court appointees would vote the straight liberal line, on every single issue. He was 100% correct.
Why should a Republican president nominate a moderate ? It's absolutely insane !
"Kritol is a lib looking for "balance", which to a liberal means a five to four liberal majority."
You obviously do not know who Bill Kristol is. He is a jerk. He is an ego-maniac, he is also a self-promoter. I know this, because I know him.
He not -- however -- a liberal. In fact, he is VERY conservative. He is Editor of the Weekly Standard, former Chief of Staff to Quayle, a neo-con, and a well known and well regarded republican. He is not a liberal.
And, so far as I can tell, he is the only one -- the only one, to properly predict O'Connor's resignation before the Chief. That means he has good sources on these issue too.