[LisaFab]

when I look back to see that ruth bader ginsburg was approved 96-3, I don't worry that a future republican minority is going to lose the ability to fillibuster judges - they wouldn't use it anyway.

But see, that's the point. Most all judicial nominees were easily approved unless there were actual mitigating circumstances. Ideological leanings weren't considered (Bork excepted) until Clarence Thomas.

It was believed that most judges, ideology aside, would rule by law, and not write it. Even after Thomas, the Pubs still played by the old rules, (Ginsburg). Chuck Schumer let the cat out of the bag in 2001 when he stated that ideology would be considered. And here we are.

[Sacajaweau]

If you're picking on idealogy, you're pre-conceiving that they will "interpret" the constitution in a certain way.

In this case, you are saying that these judges will not interpret the constitution correctly.

You have effectively made yourself the interpreter of the Constitution and that is not your function. You can not use idealogy as an advise and consent device.

[oceanview]

well put.