[Sandy]

The 9th circuit handed the Republicans a gift in its decision.

You'd have a valid point if the decision had been made solely by Democrat-appointed judges. But it wasn't. It was one Dem-appointed and one Rep-appointed. Heck, a Republican-appointed judge wrote the darned thing. Twisting this into a pro-Republican election issue is pure demagoguery.

[Keith in Iowa]

Actually, this is a gift...you just need to check the package...the judge who wrote the opinion may have been appointed by Nixon, but he's also a Senior Judge...read that as RETIRED! - He was on the bench for this case becasue of vacancies on the court - and who's responsible for that? DASCHLE. And Leaky Leahey. That point needs to be made, and loudly.

[Jim Robinson]

The judiciary is liberal and this is an act of a liberal activist judge regardless of who appointed him. The point stands. We must have a complete turnover of the judiciary and this will not happen if the Democrats are in control. It will only get worse.

[nunya bidness]

It doesn't matter who wrote the opinion. The soundbite repercussions will make this a R issue if they play it right. The fact that the one judge was pulled out of retirement because of the D failure to appoint judges makes this a win in the R column. If they play it right.

As far as demagoguery, that'll happen later, as it always does.

[Wondervixen]

That Repub Judge has been there since NIXON appointed him almost 30 years ago...Rubbing elbows with the rest of the Gay Bay crowd that long MIGHT turn a moderate conservative soft but I'm willing to bet he wasn't even a moderate in the first place!

[Dane]

It was one Dem-appointed and one Rep-appointed. Heck, a Republican-appointed judge wrote the darned thing. Twisting this into a pro-Republican election issue is pure demagoguery.

A judge appointed in 1971 when the Senate was 54 demorats, 44 Republicans, 1 independent, and 1 Conservative.

Your ignorance of the inner machinations of how Judicial process works is showing. Also since this Judge has been livng for 30 years in San Francisco where the atmosphere is all liberal all the time probably has something to do with it, IMHO.

[Dales]

The court is overwhelmingly appointed by liberals, and the crux of the issue will be not over Republican nominated or Democrat nominated judges, but instead over conservative judges/strict constructionists and activist judges.

You know, all the things that Leahy and Edwards have been preening over for the past few months, basically tying the Democrats to the wrong side of this issue.

[M. Thatcher]

Twisting this into a pro-Republican election issue is pure demagoguery.

Nope. Nixon appointed this DEMOCRAT judge because Congress was controlled by DEMOCRATS, and he was Alan Cranston's guy. Get it? Dem Congress = Dem judges = retarded rulings.

This is a total pro-Republican election issue because Dems = LIB JUDGES. This will work because it's the truth; in fact, it will work beyond your wildest dreams. Or in your case, nightmares.

[PhiKapMom]

WRONG! The Nixon judge is a Democrat that was forced down Nixon's throat by the liberal CA Senator Cranston and his buddy! The RATS controlled the Senate by such a margin that he had to take that judge! So we have two DemocRATS and one Republican who dissented.

Now you want to think about it not being a Republican campaign issue against the liberal DemocRATS who are stonewalling judges?

But the way you phrased your comment leads me to believe you are not in the corner of the Republicans are you?