[craig_eddy]

He did:

committed to interpreting the law instead of legislating from the bench

As conservatives we complain when when Dems nominate far-left candidates. Why should we complain when Bush nominates a candidate who (according to the administration) will be a strict constructionist?

SCOTUS is not a political body. We should not be concerned with a particular candidates political or social leanings. We should be concerned with whether or not they can read and interpret the CLEAR LANGUAGE of the Constitution of the United States.

[RockinRight]

If that is indeed true then she'll be fine. But there's no proof.

[peyton randolph]

committed to interpreting the law instead of legislating from the bench

The same claim was made for David "Gerbil Stuffer" Souter by Bush '41. I'm skeptical the second time around. No evidence. No support.

[johnb838]

SCOTUS is not a political body. We should not be concerned with a particular candidates political or social leanings.

Ah, so innocent, so naieve. If you believe political or social leanings don't matter, then we can do business. I have this bridge, see and...

[A Texan]

We have a winner. Good post.