Boy, the Washington Post is hot today. And by hot, of course I mean stupid. Ed Gillespie, in a WAPO "opinion" piece:
"As President Obama decides on a Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice David Souter, Senate Republicans must decide whether they will abide by the standard they used in confirming Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer during Bill Clinton's first term, or the standard set by Democrats in the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito during George W. Bush's second term."
Ed, I am going to try to explain something here, so listen closely. Ginsburg and Breyer were well-respected, fair and qualified jurists. Roberts and Alito are lying right wing hatchet men who did everything they could to hide their real agenda from the Senate.
You get the difference there? Can you see why it might not be inconsistent to support Ginsburg and Breyer, yet object to Bush's two miserable right wing con men?
When Republican Presidents think about the country first, and their rich masters second, maybe their Supreme Court picks will be treated with more respect. Of course, that hasn't happened since Eisenhower, so don't hold your breath.
Oh, I noticed this at the bottom of the article:
"The writer served as counselor to President George W. Bush from June 2007 to January 2009. He was in charge of the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts and played a leading role in the confirmation of associate Justice Samuel Alito."
Nothing like picking an impartial commentator.