I, too, would like to see that Arlen "Not Proven" Specter doesn't ascend to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In fact, I wish that we could just appoint him as ambassador to Scotland, where perhaps he'll find the law more to his liking.

I'd even be happy to accept a Rendel-appointed Democrat in his place. At least he'd be an honest one.

Hmm, so is there a good reason why Specter would be a bad choice for the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee? He's seems to have a substantial amount of legal experience and a lot of credibility for the job. His moderate political viewpoint only enhances his appeal.

And no I'm not shoveling flamebait merely to keep warm. I think republicans should consider the unintended consequences of a bad Supreme Court selection. Several really bad choices can help elect Democrats (or whatever party replaces those turkeys) for decades to come.

Oi! We've enough of our own legal nutters without having to import them from Pennslyvania...

Anyway if you keep him it will let the rest of the Senate take a break whilst everyone piles in on Specterbaby....but not for too long, there's a looooooonnng list of senators due a good bottom kicking. Shall we be totally democratic and start with the letter K?

Hmmm, let me guess, dave. You come from a state with two too many senators in the "K" section of the phone directory?

We have senators in Scotland? Where?

Targets to your front, watch and shoot, watch and shoot! It would be much more fun than grouse because senators always run in a zig zag rather than fly!

One needn't live in Massachusetts to want its senators kicked firmly and repeatedly in the patoot.

Several really bad choices can help elect Democrats (or whatever party replaces those turkeys) for decades to come.

I do like to think the Democrats will fade and another oppoisition party will arise -- or at the very least by that time the Democrats will no longer remotely resemble their 2004 incarnation.

And if that "whatever party" happens to be better from Rand's (and your) point of view than the GOP, what, exactly, is the long-term harm? ;-)

And if that "whatever party" happens to be better from Rand's (and your) point of view than the GOP, what, exactly, is the long-term harm? ;-)

What happens if they're worse? My point here is that inserting ideologues on the Supreme Court would be a bad idea in part because it allows for weaker candidates to run on an "anti" Supreme Court platform, much as Kerry attempted to become the anti-Bush. Ie, you just have to promise that you'll be different from those currently in power not that you'll be better.

My point here is that inserting ideologues on the Supreme Court would be a bad idea in part because it allows for weaker candidates to run on an "anti" Supreme Court platform, much as Kerry attempted to become the anti-Bush. Ie, you just have to promise that you'll be different from those currently in power not that you'll be better.

Who is to define what's an "ideologue," Karl?

Are people who respect the Constitution, and don't conjure up emanations of penumbras of rights "ideologues"?

I oppose Roe v. Wade not because I am opposed to legal abortion (I'm an agnostic on that issue), but because I'm opposed to decisions that have no discernable basis in the Constitution.