One of the things that really worry me now that Rehnquist is dead (God rest his soul), is who Bush will put up aws his replacement. Bush seems lately to be overly concerned with his "legacy". He wants to be a "deal maker" and "respect the rights of the minority". Sandra O'Connor was one thing--ANY conservative would be better than her--but Rehnquist was a dependale right-winger, against abortion, affirmative action, special rights for gays, etc. Does Bush have the courage to nominate someone like that? Sadly, I think the answer is no. Dirty Harry and the rest of the Dems will bitch like there's no tomorrow. As we have seen with Roberts, if anyone to the right of Fidel Castro is put up they will argue that, even though they lost the last election, they should still get to decide who sits on the Bench. Becuase...they're Democrats! If people didn't vote for them or want their ideas, those unwashed masses were obviously too stupid to know whats good for them. So Bush, whose willingness to take a decided stand on an issue can be charitably described as "quadrennial", will nominate some pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, or pro-"gay rights" idiot in hopes of placating the left. Then he can brag all day long about he was a "uniter", as if hostile partisan politics interfered with the Founders' desire for everyone to get together and sing kumbaya and roast marshmellows.