Replies

I don't suppose you consider it an insult to imply that the other 75 percent of us who don't agree with this mad rush to judgment and condemenation you all are so hell bent on are not "real" or "true" conservatives, and don't care or know about the Constitution or moral values or the United States Supreme Court, blah blah blah, right?

That is incoherent. It was not implied. Why is this being put into terms of a personal attack on your integrity? Why are you taking broad strokes at fellow conservatives? The 25%(granted it's the unscientific number from the current FR poll) are adamantly arguing that the entire Conservative movement would be better served in the process of selecting a nominee if one had been picked with an established record. Including those Miers supporters who are openly anti-elitist in their stance here and in their defense of Miers, including those who are Evangelicals, even including Freeper lawyers.

I don't see how you can accept this outside of rational purview.

By why does any nominee have to have an established record?

If an established record was the requirement for the Supreme Court, the founding fathers would have written that condition in.

They did not, leaving the Court open for nominees from all walks of life and not just judges with established records.

You're the one who said I was insulting 25 percent of the people on this forum.

I merely pointed out that it goes both ways, a concept that never seens to dawn on you purist.