It is rumored in today's New York Times that President Bush is looking to nominate a women, if at all possible. From the start I have been in favor of nominating Janice Rogers Brown (I'd actually have preferred if she was the nominee for Chief Justice, but that's a lost opportunity). Many say that Brown would be too controversial and may not hold her temper back against the likes of a Biden, Kennedy or Schumer. I agree with John Hinderaker when he says "so what?"

I agree that Brown would probably be unable to treat Dem Senators like Biden, Durbin and Kennedy with the elaborate respect that they don't deserve, and that her hearing would produce fireworks like we haven't seen in a long time. But so what? She is much smarter than her Democratic opponents, and she'd do fine. And, more important, the views she would be defending are held by the vast majority of Americans. Let's go ahead and have that fight, is my view.

This is exactly what I would have liked to happen for the Chief Justice position. It was going to be a war with Brown regardless of what spot she was going for. Roberts was golden for either spot, so why wasn't this the approach for C.J.? This kind of debate would do well to expose bad Republicans (conservative in name only) and good Democrats (those that have an intellectual basis in deciding their vote other than "a Republican nominated him/her). At that point, with nominee confirmed or denied, the voters would have good evidence with which to consider their next votes with, and we'd either have a great justice or we'd be starting over with a new nominee. I doubt the American public are going to stand for continuous filibustering of candidates, so I can't see how Bush could lose by nominating such a person as Janice Rogers Brown.