Why are you struggling with this? Of course people harbor agendas. That's just another way of saying they have substantive goals they are willing to fight for. The agenda you harbor seems to be loyalty to GWB. You're the one who's being sanctimonious. Look at you judging and name calling everyone who disagrees with YOU. You're the one sneering.
My loyalty is the nation and not to a person, or collection of persons. The agendas I refer to are contrarian and self serving agendas. Inconsistent with a "Conservative" agenda. Too many of these *agenda-ists* have gotten too comfortable with the Beltway and the access to the halls of power and opinion shaping that they, themselves, once railed against and disdained with passion.
I will say this, though. Bush has the right to nominate whomever he chooses. It is the kneejerk opposition to a candidate who hasn't the 'experience' of a judge that has me piqued. There is no requirement, whatsoever, that a SCJ be a judge, or have judicial pedigree. The Constitution was created without the advice and consent of Harvard and Columbia autocrats. It is understood to be what it is by millions of Americans who don't need the likes of Schumer, Hildebeast, Spector or the Capitol Hill pinheads telling them who can and should be on the SC.