[Petronski]

I read the posts. You want to argue that we're maintaining the balance.

The balance is crap. We should be railing against the activist court and crying out for judges who interpret the constitution as it is, not as the living document.

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with cranks.

[JeffAtlanta]

I read the posts. You want to argue that we're maintaining the balance.

Please quote where I said that I wanted to maintain the balance. I said that I we shouldn't maintain the balance.

In any event, we are pretty much maintaining the balance even though the democrats are accusing of us moving it far to the right and by comparing Alito to O'Conner they will probably get traction on it.

Going into bunker mode isn't going to help matters.

[puroresu]

Exactly! And the whole "balance" argument is flawed even it theory. There is no right-wing equivalent on the court to the left-wing judges. The media define a "balanced" court as follows: A court where five or six judges seek to impose leftist policies on the country from the bench, where three or four judges seek to leave those policy decisions to the voters, and where zero judges seek to impose rightist policies on the country from the bench.

[right-wingin_It]

I'm sorry if I didn't communicate well and I'm misunderstood.

Understand that I'm NOT advocating for some balance crap. Screw balance. I'm just saying GW should be sharp with the media, and not let them spin it to the zombie public out there, that he is somehow "unfairly" moving the court to the right.