It's nice to know that the new standard is that Supreme Court nominees are now presumed to be partisan, and they need to demonstrate their ability to disregard partisanship in order to be acceptable as justices. I'd just like to know when this became the standard for judicial acceptability? And who decided the new standards?
Is he so incredibly addle that he has the nerve to accuse another person of being overtly Partisan?
Did Mr. Scream think that Bush was going to nominate a Democrat?
I don't know where the Democrat biggies had Dean hiding these past couple of weeks, but it muat be a good spot 'cause it worked!
Now, if they'd just send him back there....
"judicial activists are not appointed to the Supreme Court"
How can the Dems say this with a straight face?
"Democrats take very seriously the responsibility to protect the individual rights of all Americans and are committed to ensuring that ideological judicial activists are not appointed to the Supreme Court."
Wow, just wow.
They really think saying the opposite of the truth can be believed?
It was the liberals who affirmed the "Kelo" ruling that trampled on property rights.
They really think Ginzberg and the Clinton/Gore Judges who go around stirking 'under God' from the pledge are *not* ideological judicial activists???
The world is turned upside-down.
Why can't Bush nominate someone non-partisan like the chief counsel for the ACLU?