IMPORTANT QUESTION (hence the screaming)

[Coexist]

Sandra Day O'Connor has said that she will stay on SCOTUS until a qualified replacement was found
<snip>
"Specter said he had spoken to O'Connor and she is prepared to stay on until June 2006 if asked. "It would be quite a sacrifice for her, but she's prepared to do it if she is asked. By next June we'll know a lot more about Judge Roberts ... than we do today," Specter said."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169990,00.html

Can the Dems delay this vote until June somehow, so we can feel out Roberts better, and know if he was a bait-and-switch or not?

I think that would be a good strategy for us, considering the paperless trail of these two odd nominations. Help please!

[asthmaticeog]

1. .

Roberts is replacing Rehnquist, not O'Connor.

[Coexist]

3. I know - Robers replaced Renquist and Miers is slated to replace O'Connor

my question is - are we able to delay to nomination of Miers until we can feel out how his other paperless nominee behaves on the court.

[asthmaticeog]

4. Ah, I see.

I don't see why delaying the Roberts vote would necessarily delay the Miers hearings, though.

[Coexist]

5. No - Roberts is already in - the delay in the Miers hearings would

give us a chance to see how Roberts rules from the bench - and give us an idea of what Bush picks who have no ruling trail and won't answer questions are truly like. A wait and see, sort of - before we confirm Miers and possibly find ourselves in deep shit for a couple of decades.

[FloridaPat]

2. As WH counsel, her first act would have to be to arrest *. He has

committed more crimes than anyone else and she is advising and defending him. * should be busy with impeachment proceedings if the Democrats really cared about the country. This is another incompetent person who is being nominated to the supreme court.