Also, as O'Connor and other swing votes have proven, it is possible to share a general ideology and yet differ in one's application to a particular set of facts. That's my problem with these hearings. They don't ask what a general ideology is, they ask "what would you do with these facts?" It's difficult to address that sort of hypothetical, stripped of all context. Also, judicial rulings aren't quiz shows; once presented with a detailed set of facts, complete with context, clerks scurry around reviewing past case law and justices negotiate amongst themselves, and eventually an opinion (or several) is produced.

And the opinion is really the important part anyhow. No because. Yes because. What makes A different from B?

Nonetheless, the hearings were a quiz show. The next ones will likely be worse. Feh.

Why are we so surprised that there is politics in our politics?

Wow - once again we disagree.

Most Americans view the ACLU as a leftist organization. It is not very popular. It would have been very easy to score HUGE political points nation wide, with both their base and many, many middle of the road people who don't like the ACLU, by opposing her and opposing her loudly.

How can you ever find "the most" qualified for any job? I don't think you can. You just find someone who is qualified.

My definition of qualified? I don't know if that can be quantified, but in this case, I would guess it is that the nominee has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to present cogent and articulate opinions of law and of the Constitution as related to legal matters.

Opinions vary widely on the Constitution between great legal minds. I think Scalia is brilliant, but couldn't have disagreed more with him than on his vote related to the recent marijuana and interstate commerce case. Does this mean he is unqualified because he interpretted something differently than I would have? Or than Thomas and Rehnquist did?

Based on one or two rulings? No. But if they demonstrate an overriding tendency and philosophy in interpreting the Constitution (e.g., "originalism") that is anathema to what I hold as a view of the Constitution that is healthy for this country, then I, as Senator Delight, could not in good conscience vote to confirm them.

And I just want to make clear that when I'm talking about matching my "ideology", I'm making a clear distinction between political ideology vs. Constitutional ideology. I don't believe I have to agree with someone's politiclal ideology for me to feel they are a good SC candidate, as long as I'm comfotable with their Constitutional ideology and that their political ideology won't intrude on that. Like I said before, you'll see far more crossing of party lines (if you can even define party lines) when it comes to Constitutional questions than anywhere else.