"He's qualified, and he's the President's choice.... he should be confirmed." - thoughtomator
Why should this ever be so? There is nothing in the Constitution to support your postion.
After O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, conservatives should closely examine and probably reject ANY judicial nominee who is reticent about his legal philosophy.
Anyone that uses the old "he's qualified" so he should be confirmed wears 50's vintage clothing and views B & W TV. THAT ERA IS OVER SPORT!
What winnie Republicans still don't get it, even after Bork. This is a fk'n WAR! It's a WAR over politics, over the destiny of America. The court appointment process is NOW politics. The liberals woke up to that in 1987 and crushed the conservatives, whipped their ass.
Who controls the courts control the Republic. Democracy is now under the control of the Supreme Imperium..5 justices have said your property is not yours, that free speech can be eliminated before elections, that white/males can lose their jobs or denied promotions because of the color of their skin or gender.
And then some winnie says "but he's qualified, we must not ask rude questions". SHHEEEEESHHH.
Why should it not be? It is the procedure spelled out in the Constitution for confirming judges to the Supreme Court. If he fails to uphold the Constitution as is his duty, impeach him.