[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Clarence Thomas had already been confirmed by the United States Senate-multiple times-and had served as an appellate judge.

He had already earned the contempt of Howard Metzenbaum and Paul Simon-to name just two extraordinarily radical Democrats that continually tried to deny him-and had an established record at the EEOC.

What's more, he had numerous high-profile Republican officeholders who spoke in his favor prior to his ultimate confirmation to the Supreme Court.

[dirtboy]

And he was continually referred to as not being that well qualified - and that there were other, more qualified judges.

That's my point here - I don't look just at experience. To me, the key consideration is pretty basic - does the nominee believe that words have specific meaning? Or that the meaning of words, such as "commerce" and "general welfare" can be modified as needed?

Everything else is static.