[LdSentinal]

if it were not for the tons of conservative negative feedback on the Meirs appointment by Bush, we would probably be royaly screwed on this Heller decision.

Too bad FR wasn't around when Reagan appointed O'Connor and Kennedy to the court.

Reagan really screwed us with those two.

[Redbob]

"Too bad FR wasn't around when Reagan appointed O'Connor and Kennedy to the court. Reagan really screwed us with those two."

Amen!
You got that right.

Based on his most recent votes, Kennedy seems determined to go out with a 'bang,' and make a name for himself in a big way!

Stevens, OTOH, is just a dolt.

[DoughtyOne]

if it were not for the tons of conservative negative feedback on the Meirs appointment by Bush, we would probably be royaly screwed on this Heller decision.

Too bad FR wasn't around when Reagan appointed O'Connor and Kennedy to the court.

Reagan really screwed us with those two.

Ultimately, you are right.  Reagan takes the heat for those appointments.  I look at it this way though.

Whoever was vetting his judicial nominees, they weren't up to the task.  I doubt Reagan got down to the nitty gritty on his judical appointments.  He probably asked for a person or a short list of person's to review before making his nomination.  The person or list was developed for him, and he made the decision based on the report for that person.  Evidently the person vetting was not looking for the right things, and these two slipped through.

I catch a lot of heat for saying this, but the Senate of the United States is the place where I think the process should catch folks like Kennedy and O'Connor, and block their entrance to the court.

The President doesn't hold hearings.  He probably talks to the nominee, but I'm not sure how in-depth that goes.  The Senators are free to ask any questions they like.  They have a staff that can review the cases the judges have presided over.  They have the ability to block troublesome nominees.

A lot of folks state something to the effect that a President deserves to get the nominees of his choice.  And as far as that goes, I'm inclined to agree, if they are sound justices.  If they are not sound justices, they need to be blocked.

Some state that blocking the other side's justices would be a mistake.  It would set up a situation where Democrats and Republicans would block each others appointments.  To a point, I agree with this, but there is no reason why a party can't block nominations from a President that is a member of their own party.

The idea that O'Connor or Kennedy should only get a couple of votes against, is silly.  The Republican members of the Senate should have teed off on these two candidates and refused to vote to affirm them.  Instead they went along like good little lemmings and vote yea.  Big mistake, IMO.

Our Senators need to take their job a little more serious IMO.  The idea that a nominee goes through unless they are an axe murderer is asinine. And our nation is paying a heavy toll, because some of these folks are slipping through.

[loboinok]

Reagan really screwed us with those two.

A fact which he acknowledged and apologized for.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Too bad FR wasn't around when Reagan appointed O'Connor and Kennedy to the court. Reagan really screwed us with those two.

Bush the Father screwed us far worse with Souter. And the milquetoast country club Republicans screwed us far, far worse with Ginsberg, who shouldn't have been allowed within ten miles of the SCOTUS.