So, what is the argument? Isn't the President given any credit for his "thoughtful" nomination? This was no willy-nilly decision and the President has the right and responsibility to select. Congress, you and I can disagree but absent a murder charge, we're acting like the Democrats - "she's not conservative enough". Bunk!!
"Congress, you and I can disagree but absent a murder charge, we're acting like the Democrats - "she's not conservative enough". Bunk!!"
This is your dividing line, whether she has a murder charge?
Oooh, the "acting like Democrats" gambit. Republicans believe in qualifications, merit. We don't think she's qualified. You won't see that many people saying she's not conservative enough. They either say she's not qualified or that she has given no indication of an originalist judicial theory, or really of any theory at all.
You, like many, simply brush this aside and slur the opponents.
The problem is that we have no idea what she is. What if she decides cases by what she likes rather than by what the constitution says?
It's a doozy.
Of course he was, the people criticizing him aren't Bush bashers, they are people who realize this is a very serious decision, more then any cabinet or ambasador position, and these same people trusted his father who gave us David Soutter. Reagan, who I respect far more then Bush could ever hope to be respected, made mistakes in this area. At least Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day OConner had more extensive track records than this personal lawyer...and the problem with all 3 of them is that they DIDN'T have enough of a paper trail.
This was no willy-nilly decision and the President has the right and responsibility to select.
No one is questioning his right, but they are questioning knee jerk reactions to confirming the selection.
Congress, you and I can disagree but absent a murder charge, we're acting like the Democrats - "she's not conservative enough". Bunk!!
Thank you for confirming 2 things; that you would only disagree with the President if the nominee actually took a life, and two, that you have positively no clue what you are talking about in constitutional law matters. I suggest you read Men In Black by Mark Levin to understand that you don't "vote" on the Supreme Court-you interpret, and that has been done poorly for 50 years. It will take an exceptional person to withstand the myriad of challenges strict constructionalists will face.
we're acting like the Democrats - "she's not conservative enough". Bunk!
I'm quite sure that's not the issue people are raising, we don't care about conservative-we care about competent, there is a difference, and this one doesn't have the latter.