Well, either that or they’re worse judges of long-term judicial temperament.

Heh.

“Who the hell is that clown?” President Richard M. Nixon asked an aide after a White House meeting on July 1, 1971. He was referring to an assistant attorney general wearing Hush Puppies and a pink shirt that clashed with a psychedelic tie. “Is he Jewish?” Nixon went on. “He looks it. That’s a hell of a costume he’s wearing, just like a clown.” The president was told the man was William H. Rehnquist.

The name didn’t stick. On July 24, Nixon referred to him as “Renchburg.” On October 5, Sen. Barry Goldwater, in a telephone conversation with Nixon, brought up a “young fellow in the Justice Department. You know I can’t think of his name. Oh, God, his name slips me.” Then it came to him: “Ah, Bill Rensler.”

“Oh,” responded Nixon, “I know Rensler well, an excellent man.” At that moment, the president had no idea that 16 days later he would be naming “Renchburg” or “Rensler” to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But from my perspective, all Bush is required to do is appoint a highly qualified judge, and frankly he’s not even required by the constitution to do that much (the language seems to permit pretty much any warm or for that matter, cold, body acceptable to the senate). The republicans control both houses and the white house: they’re entitled to appoint judges that agree with their politics.

Irrefutable evidence that conservative presidents are more even-handed in their judicial nominations than liberal presidents!

Well, either that or they’re worse judges of long-term judicial temperament.

There is no such position as “Supreme Court Swing Vote Justice.� Just saying.

What? Oh, well nevermind…I recant everything I’ve said. ;-)

Simply put, making law is not their job. If you want to change policies win elections. It is dangerous and undemocratic to use the force of the Supreme Court to make new law. Legislatures make law; justices interpret the constitution and apply law. Sometime the legislature oversteps and creates an unconstitutional law, and it is the job of the court to correct that, not to create law on its own.

The reality is there are plenty of parts of the constitution, which are actually on paper, that we can disagree with. We don’t need justices to legislate from the bench and create new controversies for us to fight over.

Additionally, I’d like to point out that Nixon was not a conservative. He never claimed to be a conservative and he certainly never governed as a conservative. Stevens, Kennedy and Souter especially are all mistakes. George H. W. Bush would certainly say Souter was his second largest mistake after increasing taxes.

However, did I say I’m endorsing this? No. I haven’t made a decision one way or the other at this point. But what I did say is we need to consider the position Alito is replacing is a “swing” vote.

Also, let’s look at your ideological 4-2-3 breakdown, shall we? And to that point, let’s look at who appointed these people.

Roberts – Bush II
Breyer – Clinton
Ginsburg – Clinton
Thomas – Bush I
Souter – Bush I
Kennedy – Reagan
Scalia – Reagan
O’Connor – Reagan
Stevens – Nixon

7 conservative nominations vs. 2 liberal nominations. You’re actually telling me that this court is left-of-center? Why? Because they don’t always take the conservative point of view on every case? Please, spare me the histrionics. Also, forgive me Nemo if I think your descriptions of my post as dangerous and foolish are, well, foolish.

Also, nobody has said that Bush has to pick somebody of a certain ideology. But should we question the nomination of somebody who could swing the court in one distinct direction for the next 20 years? Absolutely. Courts need balance, and the Supreme Court needs it more than any court. Have all of you who attack my points forgotten this?

If Alito is confirmed, that actually balances the court with 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moderate. Alito will restore balance to the court. Or something like that.

I am painting a worst case scenario here, but why do you think the Right Wing blogs love this guy? He is one vote closer to giving them everything they want.

Clause 2: …and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law…

Unless I missed it, I read that clause as saying he can appoint Supreme Court Justices, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Nothing about proper ideology.