[BillyB]

You have a really poor understanding of national politics. Low level judicial appointments generally do not draw much opposition on the merits, except in cases where a nominee has been blackballed for life (as California Democrats have done to former Congressman James Rogan because of his role in the Clinton impeachment).

Harriet Miers was put forward by Bush as a Supreme Court nominee. She was as unqualified to be on the Supreme Court as either of the political hacks that Obama has appointed to the Court. Had Miers been appointed to a federal district court seat, conservatives would have strongly supported her nomination. The Supreme Court is much too important to appoint novices to the position. Supporting the Miers nomination would have set a bad precedent for Republican conservative.

Most opposition to nominees to the federal judiciary arises when one party or the other tries to elevate a young liberal or conservative to a federal appeals court. The reason is that judges confirmed at that high level are threats to upset the ideological balance of the court. Of course, socialists like Obama will not hesitate to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who have absolutely no experience as judges.

Thanks for the education -- slanted as it was. Perhaps you should look at these nominations with more seriousness. It certainly seems to make a difference here doesn't it.