I'm not saying the dems _don't_ have a litmus test, but for the repubs to point the finger and claim innocence and ideological neutrality is, I reiterate, _pure crap_.

And that would be...?

Remember, Legion: it's the Democrat presidential candidates who are always promising overtly that anybody they put on the federal bench will be 100% reliably pro-Roe v. Wade.

Yet somehow it's always alleged that Republicans are the ones with the abortion litmus test.

Which is, to borrow your own descriptor, pure crap.

But yeah, this 'compromise' is bogus. Both sides basically agreed to put their dicks back in their pants & measure them later.

I'm at odds at the moment in regards to this filibuster deal made last night by the Senate. On one hand I see the need for Senators to compromise and move on to other important issues. On the other hand,...

Prior to Bork, my impression was that ideology was not sufficient grounds to oppose a nominee, even for SCOTUS. Rather, it was usually ethical problems, qualifications (wasn't it Nixon who nominated a mediocrity?), or somesuch challenge.

Bork, iirc, was considered eminently qualified but ideologically unacceptable.

The problem with this situation, then, is whether there is such a thing as ideologically unacceptabe for SCOTUS, even if s/he is eminently qualified as a legal scholar?

More to the point is whether such ideological opposition should be sufficient to stop a nominee when the opponents are in the minority.

I've not been a big supporter of the "nuclear option," but it seems to me that this situation was the worst of all worlds. Better for the GOP to have denied the "right" to filibuster, but choosing to leave it in the procedural tool-box for possible future use, than this "compromise."

So it's possible they're doing something right. Chris Bowers at MyDD: My opinion of whether the deal was a victory for Democrats has increased somewhat after looking over the rather astounding reaction from Republican blogs and netroots. He points to...