|
Is there a conservative here with an opinion? I've never seen one. I used to consider myself a conservative, I know a lot of conservatives, and being a conservative means something ( or at least used to) other than Republican partisanship and baseless attacks on everyone else.
I would consider myself pretty radical these days, which means I am neither conservative or liberal according to whatever the current definitions are. I think Sotomayor is obviously not a supporter of liberty, but that applies equally to Roberts, Alito,etc. Within context, I think the pick has be evaluated based on realistic candidates. Obama would never nominate someone great. Neither did Bush or most presidents. And neither would McCain if he had the chance.
FWIW, Clarence Thomas is my favorite- he seems to have the highest batting average. That doesn't mean I think he's great. He might hit .200 compared to .000 -.100 for some of the others. While he is lumped in with Scalia by many, he has set himself apart on a few important cases- and been a disapointment on others. He is the only one who ever favors individual rights over the statists.
The reality is, you are going to get someone who went to Yale or Harvard, clerked, never had any trial experience or any other life experience in work/business/anything, currently sits on the bench, and most importantly will probably take no consistent principled stands and defer to government powers 99.9% of the time. A safe bet for all Republicrats and Demopublicans. That's about as "diverse" as you will get. Whether its a male, female, gay/straight, white/black/latino, all the potential nominees are pretty much the same people. And they are going to be predictible and all the "controversy" is going to be manufactured over things that are irrelevant.
|