[Nonstatist]

Yea, but youre a traitor if you don't go along with rubber stamping a Zelig-like nobody with no written opinions about anything substantial, to the SCOTUS. Yea, youre some kind of idealogue fanatic, is what you are. Shame on you.

[MNJohnnie]

. Neither can be accused of committing Borkian candor on constitutional issues.

Oh really? Guess they have not bothered to read what she said about the 2nd Amendments. She has taken a clear cut position on the 2nd Amendment as a PERSONAL right, not a collective right. Bork wrote that he thought the 2nd was a COLLECTIVE right like almost all the Gun Control crowd claims it is. So Guess in this case she out Borks Bork but then the facts have never been the issue with the Hate Harriet Always crowd now has it?

[thoughtomator]

What the Democrats are doing with regard to Roe v. Wade constitutes a religious test by any reasonable standard. Not a test of the nominee's religion, per se; but rather a test as to whether the nominee will adhere to the socialist religion in which abortion and unlimited government authority are sacraments.

[Map Kernow]

But Bush blinked -- twice -- and picked nominees he thought would provide the Democrats with no material for an attempted Borking.

Whoops! You're now officially "Jackal Chow" here, Terence Jeffrey. You're going to get "Frum'ed" like Bork got "Bork'ed."

[untrained skeptic]

"They knew, and the Republicans knew, that conservatives were one move away from finally breaking the cycle of Borking. President Bush would nominate to the Supreme Court an unabashed strict constructionist with a record to prove it. If the Democrats took the Borking process on that nominee all the way to a filibuster, the Republican Senate majority would change Senate rules and end the filibuster of judicial nominees." Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Giggle. Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah. Yea, right. If you think that the liberals and the RINOs weren't working together to prevent the end of the filibuster on judicial nominees, then why didn't they call the vote. Why did they play political posturing games and make hollow threats for weeks and then follow with a compromise that was obviously not a compromise but a capitulation by what was supposed to be the majority. "But Bush blinked -- twice -- and picked nominees he thought would provide the Democrats with no material for an attempted Borking." Bush didn't blink. His eyes are wide open and he sees the Senate for what it is. While the Senators with a 'R' next to their names are in the majority in the Senate, there is not majority support in the Senate for a constitutionalist judicial nominee on the Supreme Court. The Senate is the major leagues for political elitists. These are not people who want power returned to the states and to the people as the Constitution dictates.

[supercat]

How is it that if someone rights in a freely-written piece that they think a previous court decision is wrong, that makes them more biased with regard to that court decision than the people who actually either wrote it or wrote a dissent?

While people who rise to the court should not be bound by things they said previously, since arguments and facts may be brought before them that they'd not previously heard or considered, the notion that someone with opinions on a matter can't be a fair judge(*) is preposterous.
(*)Unless the opinions are liberal, of course

How has the judicial selection process become so absurd? Is it a recent phenomenon?

[TomasUSMC]

Despite the fact that his party now enjoys a 55-to-45 majority in the Senate, President Bush seems to have taken this message to heart.

---

AND there in lies the problem. Today our side has the edge 55 to 45 instead of 45 to 55 and we still have the mindset of losers.

Attack and finish the dems off.