Because you want a liberal activist who will legislate from the bench, obviously.
Not at all. I wouldn't want liberal activists or conservative activists particularly on the Supreme Court or any other court for that matter
Clinton was a pragmatist and Bush an ideologue - and frankly, I trust pragmatists to act in a consensus-building fashion than ideologues. Ideology is divisive and to be honest has no place on the bench. Of course, Bush can show a bit of metal by not appeasing his conservative base but that's his prerogative
A moderate conservative in the fashion of retiring Justice O'Connor to replace her would do. I certainly don't think either progressive loons or reactionary nuts ought to determine rulings
In case, you haven't noticed I'm not exactly an advocate of liberal judicial activism - nor ever will be. I believe it's the job of legislatures and/or referenda to make laws not the judiciary
Dave
