Dr. Sanity attacks this notion of "balance" on the Supreme Court from one angle:
Nowhere is the Democrat's sense of entitlement more obvious than in the delusion, adopted because they are the minority party, that President Bush should appoint someone to the Supreme Court to keep it "ideologically balanced". They seem to believe that since Sandra Day O'Connor has been a swing voter on the court, that it is their right to demand someone similar from the President's next appointment.When did the Supreme Court of the United States become yet another entitlement program for the Democrats? Where is it written that the Supreme Court must be "ideologically balanced"? Who has ever claimed that the minority party has any rights (except the usual "advise and consent role).
This seems to me to be MERELY A BIAS - and one you hear ALL DAY LONG in the MSM: they say there is "balance" in the SCOTUS as if after the next Justice is confirmed and IF this led to new 5-4 rulings which OVERTURNED older 5-4 rulings that this would be UNBALANCED!?
This is as hypocritical as when Lefties argue - ON THE ONE HAND - FOR A LIVING CONSTITUTION, one that can be modified by looking at what foreign courts decide (!), and yet simultaneously argue - ON THE OTHER HAND - that THEIR FAVORITE RULINGS ARE SOMEHOW ETCHED IN STONE - AS IN ROE VS. WADE - which can never EVER be overturned!
Bush: what a loser! The Dems WISH they could lose like that!