[bigeasy_70118]

My objection is centered more along the lines I feel there were better qualified candidates. Note- I am not refering to ideology. I am refering to experience and her intellectual contributions to the Courts. In this sense, I feel she is only adequate and that is a disappointment.

As far as I know the only constitutional requirement to be a Supreme Court Justice is to be nominated by the President with the advise and consent of the Senate. She passed the first hurdle today.

Just note that when Nixon nominated Rhenquist, he was viewed by many as not being well qualified either. I'd more concerned, if Bush nominated a seventh grade sceince to teacher to head NASA but being an appeals court judge is not rocket science.

[OldFriend]

When Thomas was nominated there was endless shrieking about him certainly NOT being the most qualified person for the Court.

Some things never change. Too bad so many of us fall into the media trap and rush to attack our own.

[Soul Seeker]

Granted, it is not a constitutional obligation nor did he make the promise he'd appoint the best legal and experienced mind, absent Robert as a choice, for the position. This is why I defy those that contend this is a betrayal. But it's certainly a disappointment personally.