Supreme Court replacement

It has been three days since Justice O'Connor announced her retirement. Here are some of the articles regarding the replacement process.
USA Today interview of President Bush
In The Confirmation Paralysis Agenda, Jed Babbin argues that the president should take the offensive in the confirmation battles to come.
Opinion Journal from the Wall Street Journal
The Washington Post looks at how money plays a role. Some of the bombastic rhetoric is said to please the special interest groups to ensure the money keeps flowing.
Bench Memo's from National Review Online has a run down on Sen. Arlen Specter's standard line of questioning.

Dennis Prager on Why Democrats will smear any conservative court nominee


Expect many more articles of speculation since the president said he doesn't plan to announce a choice before returning from the G-8 summit. Watch how the media continues to characterize Justice O'Conner. They are labeling her as a "moderate," a "swing-vote," and even the "key vote to maintain Roe v. Wade." Those labels are usually followed with a comment about the need to name a liberal to maintain the the balance on the court. Don't buy it! Those arguments are false on several fronts. First off, on most matters she was a relatively conservative justice. Secondly, on Roe v. Wade, in recent years she has been one of six justices voting consistently to maintain that abomination of a judicial decision so even if you replaced her with me nothing changes. However, beyond all that, there is no requirement to maintain some alleged balance on the court. When Byron White retired did anyone tell Bill Clinton he needed to name a justice against abortion to replace him? No. Because there is no requirement for balance and the court selections should not be based solely on that one decisive issue.