Let me ask you a couple questions.
1. Are you glad that Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court?
2. Was all the pain in getting him confirmed worth it?
If you answered 'yes' - which I'm thinking you did - what in the hell is W thinking by nominating a career politician (excuse me, STATE LOTTERY COMMISSIONER) with absolutely ZERO judicial track record to maybe the most important Supreme Court vacancy of our generation and maybe a generation to come?
How can you defend this nonsense when there are at least a half dozen MINIMUM extraordinary candidates out there who - though they may have a rocky confirmation - have achieved there bona fides on the bench and are RELIABLY conservative and originalist? For the party that decries affirmative action as a slap in the face of the notion that those who are BEST QUALIFIED should be rewarded, I cannot believe that you are defending the nomination of Harriet Miers when Alito, Jones, Luttig, Williams, Sykes, Brown, and others are slam dunk justices "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas".
Forget about these guys - this is a slap in the face to Justice Thomas and Judge Bork who stood in the firestorm, bloodied and beaten so Bush could appoint an old friend.
At this point, I don't care if she turns out to be the clone of Anton Scalia. The White House couldn't stomach a tough confirmation and stuck a shiv in the backs of some of the most qualifies and deserving jurists this nation has ever produced.
This is a disgrace.
Yeah, and don't forget Thomas was like 45 when Bush Senior nominated him. God Dubya fumbled this badly.
I trust President Bush and his decisions, more than your ranting.......