Roberts confirmed, 78-22

[Ghoulish Delight]

Veering back to the OP for a moment, I have no problems with those statements, even not taking into accont my little side-bar up there. Those senators simply state that they worry that he will not interpret the Constitution and come up with decissions, rather that he will come up with interpretations of the Constitution that fit his ideology. Whether they are right or wrong about Roberts doing that remains to be seen, but I see that as a perfectly valid reason to vote against.

[Prudence]

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.

[€uroMeinke]

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

[Ghoulish Delight]

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.