" . . . He promised more judges like thomas and scalia,"
And he's delivered!
BTW: The following is what unappeasable conservatives like youself had to say about CLARENCE THOMAS when he was nominated:
" . . . On the basis of what is known, there is every reason to believe that Judge Thomas will live up to his promise. Truth be told, however, his public record on issues other than civil rights is still more Souteresque than Borkian" . . . Sound familiar?!
http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/editors200510040807.asp
LOL, you people need to get your message straight.
First aunt harriet was to the right of bork on the 2nd amendment, which makes here a good pick and bork not good, and now clarence thomas was to the left of bork, which makes bork the good pick and clarence thomas the bad one.
So bork is both the standard bearer for good and bad comparisons, the meaning of which changes based on the conclusion you want people to draw.
And the point, again, is that in this case, there's not much to draw on for aunt harriet except secondhand statements of what she believes.
And when there is direct evidence that condems her, we're supposed to ignore that.
The situational stances of this debate are making my head spin. I thought those kind of things went out with the clinton administration? Who knows.
Excellent