Andrew J. Weill <aweill_at_3iUScy5fNT3QJCCsueBw0j96Z1r0KKRZmO7WsBnSb_7GQxHiMa_md2yuQnUfJ9MgM8cV_1SqMISuLBev.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
Regardless of whether judicial confirmations *should* consider ideology, I think it's clear that the Senate likes to pretend that they don't consider ideology, only competence and temperament. It's a thin pretence, but the pretence is still there now, and was stronger back in the 80s.
So Scalia isn't really a counterexample. While his ideology is strong, he didn't really hand the Senate a "temperament" club to beat him with.
Also, I believe Chris's argument is that the Bork confirmation *was a turning point*. Pointing to an earlier staunch conservative who was confirmed doesn't really address that, since the Scalia confirmation occurred before the "turning point" in question.
Now. How 'bout those Puma People?
Powered by hypermail