sorry, luke. i think yoshi's right. it's splitting hairs to write of nominating vs voting. one must go by a person's actions, particularly a politician's record. scalia is just as "evil" to vote for as to nominate. and much more than an "ideological foe." he's a foe of the american people, instrumental in the US presidential coup of 2000.
kerry knew exactly what he was voting for. there's no "i voted for authorizing the president to act in iraq because i believed he would ..." blah, blah, blah "and he didn't" on this one. the scalia issue is cut and dried.
whereas, i don't personally believe kerry would nominate scum like scalia, yoshi is thoroughly justified in making this point and raising this possibility. we simply do not know what kerry would do.
i didn't believe clinton would back down on nominations like lani guinier, either. i didn't expect him not to fight for decent people in the nominating process simply because it was the easy way out. i didn't expect him to nominate nonentities like ginsberg to the supremes because she wouldn't displease oren hatch. i didn't expect gore and the democratic party to throw the 1999 election after winning it. let's not count our chickens before they're hatched (pun intended).
R
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk