Who should President Bush nominate to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor?

By David Palmer

With Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement, President Bush now has the opportunity to right-fully pack the Court with someone that will truly pacify all good-intentioned right-wing zealots.

Any opposition by whining ("aka "obstructionist") Democrats will be an effort in futility due to the fact that Sen. Bill Frist and his cadre of enablers will not hesitate to use the "nuclear option" to assure that Bush and the evangelical right gets its way.

Unlike President Franklin D. Roosevelt's attempt to "pack the court," Bush can be counted on to do so in a "Christian-way," which would make it perfectly acceptable.  Right?

Bush's primary responsibility in selecting a nominee to replace O'Connor is to make sure that he pacifies evangelical kingpins like James Dobson.  Of course the same will be true when Chief Justice Rehnquist retires.

It is imperative that Bush's nominee can be relied on to cast votes to (a) overturn Roe v. Wade, (b) allow prayer in public schools, (c) vote against any form of affirmative action, (d) vote to uphold state sodomy laws, (e) legalize posting the ten commandments in all public buildings, and (f) declare gay marriage (or being gay for that matter) to be unconstitutional.  This litmus test is affectionately called "Dobsonism."

Unreliable sources indicate that Bush is considering a list of nominees submitted to him by James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, the Southern Baptist Conference and a host of other right-wing patriots.

Prospective Nominees

Ann (Annie get your gun) Coulter - Annie is eminently qualified as her contemporary-liberal views are well-known and she is a graduate of the Univ. of Michigan Law School.  Moreover, Annie wouldn't have to quit her day job making nice of Democrats.  Betty yet, she may well forgo any salary and could easily be persuaded to submit her votes on right-wing issues in advance, thereby saving the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars for staff, etc.

G. Gordon Liddy - G. Gordon graduated from Fordham law school in 1957 and is well qualified to replace O'Connor.  In addition, he can be relied on to break into Sen. Reed's office and scurry away with any documents relating to the Democrats agenda to unjustly defeat Bush's nominee, thereby thwarting such attempts.  G. Gordon can also be relied on to use a little friendly persuasion to convince Breyer and Ginsburg that it would be good for their future health to retire; thereby allowing Bush to replace them before the end of 2007. 

Rev. Pat Robertson - Pat received his law degree from Yale Univ. Law School in 1955.  Rev. Pat's philosophy is well-known and he could certainly be relied on to immediately move to overturn Roe v. Wade and affirm prayer in public schools.

John Ashcroft - John is an attorney and his evangelical beliefs would pacify even the most ardent left-wing zealot.  Moreover, there are many benefits to having John on the bench.  No more would little children be violated by the sight of naked or semi-naked statutes in Washington.  And everyday the Court is in session, he could lead the justices in prayer in seeking guidance from above on how to right-fully cast their votes.  Praise the Lord!  Is America a great country or what?

Non-attorney candidates

The U.S. Constitution sets forth no specific requirements to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court (Yeah, tell me about it!); therefore, nothing would prohibit Bush from nominating a non-attorney to replace O'Connor.  I believe that any of the following non-attorneys would make excellent justices.

James Dobson - Jim would obviously be an excellent choice.  Jim could open a satellite book store at the Court to sell some of the more than 100 anti-gay publications he offers on his website.  Wouldn't it be just Jim Dandy to have him on the Court?  What a guy!  Gay basher extraordinaire!

VP Dick Cheney - Dick would truly be an awe-inspiring justice.  His dovish credentials are well known despite the left's attempt to wrongfully label him as a neo-con.  What's wrong with kicking a little Arab ass by bombing the crap out of Iraq even though they weren't involved in the 9-11 attack?  Ya gotta do what ya gotta do, right Dick?  Dick's mellow demeanor and direct manner in not mincing words would serve him well during Court deliberations.  When some liberal left-wing zealot like Justice Breyer interjected some silly (constitutional) objection to Dick's theology, he could just use that ol' refrain that worked so well on Sen. Leahy by telling him to "go f _ _ _ yourself."  Let's hear a big clap for Dick!

Sean Hannity - Sean is a hero in many respects, in that he is willing to speak to important issues in a calm, intelligent, reasoned and unbiased manner.  With Sean on the bench, acrimonious deliberations would likely end due to his willingness to shout down those with opposing views.

Tom Delay - What can I say about Tom's credentials that hasn't already been said?  The mere fact that he graduated scum laude from the Huey Long School of Ethics at Louisiana Tech University speaks for itself.  Need I say more?  As a highly respected legislator, it is unlikely that there would be any undue delay in confirming Tom.

Rush Limbaugh - Rush is my personal favorite and I suspect he's yours too.  Although Rush is a timid soul, I believe that as Chief Justice he could be relied on to persuade the other justices to assure that our constitutional rights of privacy will be justifiably eroded.  The only fringe benefit that Rush would likely demand (other than an onsite Wendy's) is that Bush sign an executive order to open a pharmacy at the Court.

Conclusion - My preference in the makeup of the Court prior to Bush's departure in Jan. 2008 would be Scalia, Thomas, Ann Coulter, G. Gordon Liddy, James Dobson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh (Chief Justice), Tom Delay and Dick Cheney.  How about you?