[Timeout]

Please don't give ammunition to their propaganda.

You obviously didn't read the entire post. I'm not arguing against ideology. I'm merely pointing out the way this president has conducted himself for 5 years now. He's a stickler for the constitutional role of the presidency. He won't express political or ideological reasons for a judicial nomination. He will stick to their LEGAL philosophy. I'm saying: he believes a conservative LEGAL philosophy will lead to rulings favorable to the conservative agenda. So you're going to hear the very same words from him: this nominee will respect the constitution and will not make law from the bench. THAT is his focus...and I think properly so.

[inquest]

The problem is, "legal philosophy", taken in a vacuum, doesn't illustrate anything. The way Miers and others talk about how judges shouldn't "make law" leaves the impression that there are other judges who think they should "make law". But you know what? There isn't a single justice on the court who would actually say that. They all claim to be applying the law (just look at what Breyer has to say for himself). They just have different views of what the law is.

So the only way to evaluate whether or not a judge is the right pick is to evaluate his or her actual understanding of the law. Thinking that we can somehow get around that by looking at "philosophy" alone is just wishful thinking.