There will be three whole years of Supreme Court decisions for Americans to see how President Bush's appointees vote.
I refuse to believe that he would send up a person who will not be a conservative vote.
We supporters of President Bush have asked his detractors to trust his judgment in the War on Terror, and yet, in one of the most important responsibilities he has as Chief Executive - nominating Supreme Court Justices - so many of us are quick to vocally not trust his judgment. I see that as a serious flaw in logic.
And we always criticize the Dems for acting on emotion.
Being a conservative politically is a very different thing than having a constitutional interprative philosophy. For example, a conservative opposed to abortion could have a stronger view of stare decisis and vote to uphold Roe. Bush might know her political leanings. But there is no record of a developed constitutional philosophy on which we can rely.
"so many of us are quick to vocally not trust his judgment. I see that as a serious flaw in logic. "
What a disconnect.
"trusting his judgement" is not based on logic. It is the position based on emotion.
Asking for evidnece, proof - that is the logical position.
Saying "bush is a good man and I like him and trust him" is, by definition, the emotional position.
"I refuse to believe that he would send up a person who will not be a conservative vote."
Why? He's never said he was a conservative, has he?