That was one of the main reasons W was elected and re-elected.
Can you post a little more of the article?
Ping.
Why is there only one nominee per district, but multiple vacant seats?
Yes, that's the idea. That's precisely why he was elected and why the voters gave the Senate a majority!
Okay, so Democratic Presidents are going to appoint conservative judges?
That graphic makes the RATS' arguments over judicial nominees amazingly transparent.
Look at the Ninth Circuit "balance", Schumer! Kinda telling how this Circuit Court has the MOST BY FAR overturned decisions by the Supreme Court.
WSJ: Sun rises in east -- Democrats see picks impacting women, children.
Basically we've had almost entirely liberal judges appointed to the courts for the past 60 years. Even when Republican presidents were in office they usually had to deal with Democrat-dominated senates. So Republican presidents compromised--meaning they appointed half RINOs and half Democrats--while Democrat presidents appointed more and more machine politicians and leftist activists to the bench.
Not even Ronald Reagan succeeded in reversing this unhappy trend, in which our courts have gotten more and more radical, unaccountable to the voters or the Constitution, and out of control.
Bush is the first Republican president to actually hold out for decent appointments. Rather than compromise in his first term, as Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan finally did, he has stuck with his nominees. As a result there has been deadlock for four and a half years. That's better than giving in and appointing an Earl Warren or a David Souter to the Supreme Court. Hopefully we are reaching the breaking point, and hopefully it will break our way.
This reminds me of the fight over reapportionment in Texas. It's OK when the Democrats stack the deck and gerrymander, but when the voters endorse a change of parties, the Democrats have to be dragged along kicking and screaming about how unfair their opponents are.
This is precisely why courts shouldn't be legislating. If they did their jobs according to original intent, then we wouldn't be having this fight. These days the only reason who you vote for matters is that they have influence over the make up of the courts. The more courts legislate, the more intense the fight over nominations becomes. It's inevitable. Judges are our new elite rulers, so what little say we have on just WHO rules is of paramount importance.