BTW, this from David's site.
"I am logging off for 24 hours now for the Yom Kippur holiday. But here is one last thought before I go, a letter from a reader who wants to address directly the charge that there is something "elitist" about expecting excellence and principle from the men and women who serve on the nation's highest court:
"I am a simple man and good career automotive mechanic. Yet, I have been passed over for promotions several times in my career in favor of the slacker who is always sucking-up to the boss, laughing at his jokes, and drinking coffee with him, while I labored in the garage trenches doing the heavy lifting. This goes way beyond this one appointment and one position. This is an affront to all hard workers, achievers, and lovers of merit. Especially those of us within the federal government. Look at the message the president is sending to all of America: girls before boys, personality before performance, it's who you know rather than how hard you work and how good your results are."
Bush will be Bush, not Ronald Reagan. Even Reagan picked some justices that turned out not as expected. If we wanted a strong conservative in there, we should have picked Ralph Reed rather than Bush as our candidate.
I'm on it.
So you want to argue that Conservative Judges only follows their principals and the Law in order to draw favorable attention for the Establishment? Sorry but a judge who would ignore the law and rule based on how they think it will effect their career down the road is EXACTLY the kind of judge MOST unqualified for the SC. Basically you are arguing we must bribe future judges to get them to follow principals.
Sorry you are mad. However, that does NOT make her unqualified. Funny how you all forget that Souter was NOT known to Bush Sr and was the Establishment pick. Gee that really worked out well for us didn't it?