John Roberts' Confirmation to the Supreme Court

[opebo]

Good heavens no!  If I were a Democratic Senator I would never vote yes on any Republican appointee.

Why on earth would one do that?

[opebo]

Good heavens no!  If I were a Democratic Senator I would never vote yes on any Republican appointee.

Why on earth would one do that?

Arlen Specter would get the easiest 100-0 confirmation you ever saw.

Well, sure.  But I still think that party members should always vote against the opposing party's nominees, on principle. 

[opebo]

Good heavens no!  If I were a Democratic Senator I would never vote yes on any Republican appointee.

Why on earth would one do that?

Arlen Specter would get the easiest 100-0 confirmation you ever saw.

Well, sure.  But I still think that party members should always vote against the opposing party's nominees, on principle. 

That's not 'on principle', you know. Voting 'on principle' would mean voting for a qualified candidate regardless of affiliation.

No, that would be failing ones constitutents.  One should only vote for a nominee that is in agreement with them.

[opebo]

Good heavens no!  If I were a Democratic Senator I would never vote yes on any Republican appointee.

Why on earth would one do that?

Arlen Specter would get the easiest 100-0 confirmation you ever saw.

Well, sure.  But I still think that party members should always vote against the opposing party's nominees, on principle. 

That's not 'on principle', you know. Voting 'on principle' would mean voting for a qualified candidate regardless of affiliation.

No, that would be failing ones constitutents.  One should only vote for a nominee that is in agreement with them.

Uhm... wouldn't one's constituents want a qualified candidate first? And would they rather have a vacancy, or a long battle?

If one is a liberal, and therefore one's constitutents are liberals, then obviously they would rather have a vacancy or a long battle than a religious 'conservative'.