So the man who ruled in Bush's favour in the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election has died.
William Rehnquist was certainly a controversial figure. Not least the ruling he gave in Bush's favour in 2000, he also allowed impeachment proceedings against President Clinton to go ahead, dissenting in the Roe Vs Wade case, having his own robes of office made, when previous Chief Justices wore the same robes as other Justices of the Supreme Court, to mention but a few.
Whether you think well or ill of him, he was certainly a character. The concern at the moment is who Bush will appoint in his place and that of Sandra Day O'Connor.
It is a justifiable concern, as the posting has a reputation of being a political one. It shouldn't be but it is understandable, for example if we had such a system in the UK and you shared Norman Tebbit's politics you wouldn't want such a post to go to Michael Mansfield. Likewise, if you shared Tony Benn's politics, you wouldn't want someone from the Freedom Association on there, (but then I doubt a lot of people in this country would).
I could think of some more examples but I can see a noose in front of me, and this blog is apparently now circulated amongst 'bloggers4labour' ;). Suffice to say I can think of a third example in the high echelons of government!
But getting back to the point being made, I don't think it matters as much as one fears. It isn't as if there will be more Republicans than there were on the bench and President Reagan did manage to pick a moderate in Sandra Day O'Connor.
God moves in mysterious ways!