Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
A solidified conservative court was going to be the crowning achievement for 40 plus years of struggle. The right wanted someone who was part of that fight, who stood on principle, and was not afraid to voice his or her beliefs in writing - a Scalia type person. This was to the coming out party - loud and proud. Instead, what they got was someone who, the president apparently believes, needs to cover up her beliefs. Instead of the proud acclamation, they are getting something more seemingly sheepish, as if those beliefs are something to be embarassed about.
|
Agree with the underlying thought, but we spent an awful lot of time explaining why Roberts was supposed to cover up his underlying beliefs, and so this one is a hard political sell. I hate being on this side of these form-over-substance debates.
Face it - we want to be able to know the answers to all of these questions before a nomination, and, in fact, we acknowledge that it's these answers that define for us a proper nominee, but then we persist in claiming that someone else not knowing these answers is not a proper basis for them blocking the nomination.
We should be allowing any and all questioning of nominees by anyone. It's relevant and important, and denying this is form over substance. We'd be in a more defensible position vis-a-vis Miers had we done so earlier.
