Replies

Too many good people like Mark Levin like this guy for him to be another Souter. I think Ann's a little carried away on this one.

I do agree with her, though, that the GOP conservatives should be more aggressive in defending their judicial philosophy. By constantly nominating people with little or no paper trail, you do take a risk of giving us a Souter or an O'Connor or a Kennedy. In addition, by doing this they are conceding that the 'Rat definition of "mainstream" is the correct one. They're basically saying, "Hey look, our nominee isn't out of the mainstream....he's never once criticized Roe or supported voluntary prayer or denounced the Massachusetts ruling on gay marriage as a matter of principle."

The GOP needs to start acting like the majority they represent. Aside from that criticism, I support the Roberts nomination and believe him to be a practitioner of judicial restraint.

"In addition, by doing this they are conceding that the 'Rat definition of "mainstream" is the correct one. They're basically saying, "Hey look, our nominee isn't out of the mainstream....he's never once criticized Roe . . . "

I completely agree. I think the judicial philosophy debate is one that conservatives can easily win, because - even in this Oprahfied society - original intent corresponds to how most people think about the law.

Too many good people like Mark Levin like this guy for him to be another Souter. I think Ann's a little carried away on this one.

Or maybe Ann is trying to give liberals some false hope to support the guy.

I do agree with her, though, that the GOP conservatives should be more aggressive in defending their judicial philosophy. By constantly nominating people with little or no paper trail, you do take a risk of giving us a Souter or an O'Connor or a Kennedy.

Certainly, and I had that feeling with Judge Edith "Joy" Clements yesterday. But Roberts seems 100% solid in the mold of Scalia. Maybe he will disappoint and only be a Rehnquist. But Roberts is no O'Conner and certainly not a Souter.

In addition, by doing this they are conceding that the 'Rat definition of "mainstream" is the correct one. They're basically saying, "Hey look, our nominee isn't out of the mainstream....he's never once criticized Roe or supported voluntary prayer or denounced the Massachusetts ruling on gay marriage as a matter of principle."
_________________________________________________________

Exactly and I take this to be a big part of Ms. Coulters point. Now was the time to appoint an OPEN conservative and define the mainstream to include conservatives since we control all the elected branches of government.