E.J. Dionne Jr.'s Silly Column

Democrats are reaching for every reason why President Bush should nominate their choice for the Supreme Court. Some are ridiculous, i.e. "Bush should nominate a justice that would be a uniter." As if we need another politician on the Court.

But now comes a very silly column by E.J. Dionne Jr in the Washington Post. He contents that since Bush won with only 50.7 percent of the vote, he must nominate a justice that is proportionately conservative and liberal. I don't think he made the same argument when Clinton was elected with only 41 percent of the popular vote; but hey, evidently Dionne's logic is beyond a red stater's comprehension.

Dionne does not let us know at what percentage a President could nominate justices of his choice. Would it be 60-40 or 75-25? Using Dionne's logic, we would not need a two party system.


So Bush should look for someone pro-abortion, but anti-gay ; maybe a Christian, that doesn't go to church; perhaps a Second Amendment supporter that fires blanks; or a justice that would only apply odd numbered amendments in his decisions.


He encourages outside groups to fight for minority rights, but does he really believe that a Bush nominee; of any stripe, other than a liberal, would be acceptable to the Left. NAAA, it must have been a slow day for a column idea.

PS: ironically the spell check correction for Dionne is "dimness."