[faithincowboys]

Is Edith Clement the most conservative nominee Bush could have got through the process and put on the court? If the answer is no, why did he appease the Democrats? Her conservative bone fides are at best suspect, why are we left with this uncertainty. To put an unknown quantity on there, when we know the movement to the left that many justices have made, is just inexcusable. I want the comfort of knowing that the nominee is a faithful, committed conservative who , at the very least, would have to do lots of public explanation if he or she went Left-- that there would be a paper trail and a desire to appear principled keeping them honest. A blank-slate nominee isn't what I signed on for.

[deport]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1232125/posts

[kevkrom]

Well, shucks, who knew Bush needed to clear his nominee past you in order for it to be deemed acceptable? Perhaps he just used his own best judgement, and that maybe we should wait and actually see what happenes before making gigantic leaps of supposition. Perhaps we shouldn't start make sweeping statements about candidates until we've had the time to properly and thoroughly research them.

That's my position. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that Clement is a bad choice, I just haven't seen anything yet against her that qualifies as anything other than hysterical ranting. What I have seen about her, so far, I like.

[deport]

A blank-slate nominee isn't what I signed on for.

---

Sounds like you put your faith in the wrong person.... When you sign on for politics you get some of what you want and a lot of what you don't want. That's the way it is.

I've read nothing that indicates what you say about POTUS saying he'd appoint the most conservative justice he could. I think your faith in cowboys has went to your head when you signed on and you forgot to remember reality. ... jmo and your mileage will differ I'm sure.