[kevkrom]

Someone, somewhere along the line, should have told you to defend the principle, not the President.

Someone, somewhere should have told you to do your research before posting conclusions. (Not to mention that vanities are discouraged.)

But then again, how can I possibly reason with someone whose entire response as to the source of complaints against this potential nominee was, and I quote:

souter

Truly, I am awed by the brilliance that went into that response.

[faithincowboys]

You never answered the questions I raised in post 125 , therefore, I'll assume you can't. So what's the use talking to you anymore.

[kevkrom]

Oh, and for the record, I'm not really defending anyone, except to the extent of correcting hysterical misinformation. I'm perfectly willing to accept that this choice, should it even be made, is a mistake. You have shown no willingness to even consider that it isn't a mistake.

I'm not asking you to support the (potential) choice, I'm just asking you to hold fire until 1) the choice is made and 2) the candidate is thoroughly researched. If you still don't like the choice at that time, then by all means rant away.