Here is what I posted in the comments section of this instapundit post:
:
1. Why is Bush nominating an unknown commodity who is only distinguised by her personal ties to the President ahead of proven conservatives who are also, by the way, really good judges? Why are we taking a risk?
:
2. If Bush is scared of a Senate confirmation fight, why? Scalia was confirmed by a Democratic-controlled Senate -- are we scared that a McConnell or Luttig would get voted down by a Republican-controlled one? How pathetic is that?
2. If Bush is scared of a Senate confirmation fight, why? Scalia was confirmed by a Democratic-controlled Senate -- are we scared that a McConnell or Luttig would get voted down by a Republican-controlled one? How pathetic is that?
:
3. This sets a terrible precedent. The lesson here for aspiring Supreme Court justices is A) don't leave a paper trail and B) be a friend of the White House occupant. If you have a history of well-thought out opinions that confirm your standing as a conservative and didn't get a Christmas card from 1600 Penn, forget about it.
3. This sets a terrible precedent. The lesson here for aspiring Supreme Court justices is A) don't leave a paper trail and B) be a friend of the White House occupant. If you have a history of well-thought out opinions that confirm your standing as a conservative and didn't get a Christmas card from 1600 Penn, forget about it.
:
4. We'd all be kicking and screaming if Kerry/Gore/Clinton made an equivalent move.
4. We'd all be kicking and screaming if Kerry/Gore/Clinton made an equivalent move.
:
Update: I'm wrong about Scalia. He was confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate in 1986, not Democratic. Democrats won Senate control in elections that November. Nonetheless he was still voted in 98-0.
No comments:
Post a Comment