[Reactionary]

"If a paper trail firmly identifying a nominee as an "originalist," or whatever, is a prerequisite for nomination, then we will never have anyone but judges and law professors as Supreme Court justices."

Well, at least someone "gets" it.

[jackbenimble]

But, once a handful of Republican senators have used such a rationale to vote against a Republican nominee, it requires little imagination to foresee how quickly the Democrats will use that precedent to justify their own opposition to essentially any Republican nominee, no matter how well-qualified or mainstream.

I had not realized that the RATS needed an excuse for filibustering well qualified mainstream Republican candidates. They have been doing that already.

[flashbunny]

"If a paper trail firmly identifying a nominee as an "originalist," or whatever, is a prerequisite for nomination, then we will never have anyone but judges and law professors as Supreme Court justices."

Well, at least someone "gets" it.

---

Walter E Williams is an economist and author. However, he has written more on the constitution and bill of rights than harriet miers ever dreamed of writing.

The quoted sentence is rather silly. All you need is evidence that the person is a strong, known originalist - it doesn't necessarily have to be as a judge or law professor. But it certainly can't be a complete blank slate like Miers.