You mean like Thomas, O'Connor and Souter? "Expert" predictions of how a judicial nominee would rule from the bench have been consistently wrong. Thomas was a judge for less than a year before being nominated to the Supreme Court. You know what he did before that? Served eight years as the Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. If you had "known" his "commitment to conservative jurisprudence" before he was confirmed, you would have been unique. Many noted conservatives figured he would be another Souter.
"So, I still say that President Bush has failed to deliver on his campaign promise. Does that make me a liar?"
No. It makes you ignorant. But at least you are no longer saying "The President promised to appoint judges in the mold of Thomans and Scalia." Then you would be a liar.
Considering the source, it's a badge of honor I wear with pride. Another layer of asbestos for my underwear. Flame away, I am immune to your insults.
I think it is time that people around here stopped their knee-jerk repetition of the party line that O'Connor is anathema. First, she was certainly qualified, and among other things graduated 3rd in the Stanford law school class that Rhenquist graduated 1st in.
Second, she has been very vocally, and eloquently "right" on a lot of causes that we do care about. For instance, she made it clear that she thought Kennedy stupid in writing in her Kelo opinion. "We" disagree with her philosophy on some social issues. Fine, state your disagreement, but don't scream betrayal by someone who has been an honorable public servant.
Third, I know it is also a divisive opinion around here, but she joined the majority in the Rasul v Bush opinion, which correctly noted that the constitutional right of habeas corpus trumped the unconstitutional all power to King George in his fight against terrorism. It is funny that in that action Bush II took the opposite side of Bush I who, in the Gulf 1 War, saw no reason to set aside the Geneva convention in the treament of potential illegal combatants.