Ask Sessions. He just emitted party line ,thoughtlessly and inevitably. There was no argument for her. The repubs bailed on that one quickly. The dems probably would have not fought very hard. they seemed to resign themselves to giving in to Bush’s right to pick. The repubs will not lay down for Obama’s choices though. Sessions should be a major embarassment to the repubs. How he keeps getting re elected is a mystery to me.
Look at what state elects him. 
I find it not surprising, btw, that the Republicans have already trotted out someone to be the point man in arguing against WHOEVER it is President Obama nominates. In other words, they aren’t even waiting to see if it’s going to be someone they can live with. The core of the party believes that no one the president nominates could be someone they could accept on the bench. :rolleyes:
Today’s NY Times article (on gay patience and potential disollusionment with Obama’s actions and inactions) mentions that there are several openly gay contenders to replace Souter. Any idea who they’re talking about? I have to say I think that, assuming the person is highly qualified in other ways, this would be a terrific move on Obama’s part, and would add to the SCOTUS mix in an interesting and beneficial way.
Pam Karlan and Kathleen Sullivan.
Thanks. I see from this thread that both are considered “academics”. Are either serious candidates? Are either just “strict reading of the Constitution” enough to satisfy at least a few conservatives?
Oh, no, I think it’s much more cynical than that. They believe they have to fight whomever Obama names just to keep their credibility as an opposition party.
I would love that if the candidate was impeccably qualified. It would really stick it in the ear of the religious right, but the Pubs in Congress would have no real ability to make an issue of his/her sexuality at the confirmation hearings.