Judging History: Republicans Don't Know What They Want in a Judge

Thomas Sowell writes at National Review Online:

It is understandable that liberal Democratic presidents, beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt, loaded the Supreme Court with liberal, Democratic justices.

What is far harder to understand is how a whole succession of conservative Republican presidents — Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush 41 — managed to appoint so many liberals to the Supreme Court.

All these presidents ran on the idea that what courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, needed were judges who followed the law instead of making up their own new laws.

Voters who put these Republican presidents in the White House repeatedly found themselves disappointed with many, if not most, of their nominations of Supreme Court justices.

***
Given the momentous impact of Supreme Court decisions on 300 million Americans today and on generations yet unborn, it is staggering that either presidents or justices themselves cannot keep their eye on the ball and understand the high stakes at issue.

***
Whatever the shortcomings of Democrats, they know what they are for — and are willing to go all out to fight for it. Republicans often seem ambiguous about what they are for and seem to regard fighting as ungentlemanly.

Senate Democrats went all out to stop the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and to try to stop the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas. These Democrats did not let either truth or decency cramp their style.

But Republicans voted overwhelmingly to confirm liberal-left nominees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer when Bill Clinton nominated them. The Senate vote was 87 to 9 for Breyer and 96 to 3 for Ginsburg.

[More]

My Comments:
All I can say is thank God conservatives held W's feet to the fire over the Miers nomination, or we'd be kicking ourselves for years to come over yet another Republican bonehead appointment to the Supreme Court.