"Because federal judges receive lifetime appointments...

[IndianaJones]

and often serve through terms of multiple presidents, it behooves a president - and benefits our democracy - to find moderate nominees who can garner some measure of bipartisan support."

Barack Obama

[asthmaticeog]

1. What an ass. nt

[ISUGRADIA]

5. Yeah, it would be great public rhetoric for him to say

he'll only appoint extreme liberal judges only. Yeah, that will get the votes.

[asthmaticeog]

8. Actually, I was talking about you. nt

[robinlynne]

2. Hell no. We have tons of extreme rightwing judges. Time for some good ones to

balance.

[DURHAM D]

3. Is he really...

Is he really that stupid? He just does not get it.

[IndianaJones]

4. he has bipartisan appeal. nt.

[Pushed To The Left]

6. What's wrong with that? Sounds to me like the opposite of what Bush was doing!

I believe that non-partisan judges are the best thing for civil rights. Remember, Obama voted against both Alito and Roberts. The most important way to protect the Supreme Court is to keep the right-wing justices out of there.

[Nailzberg]

7. Ah. I see the out of context quote machine has been turned back on.

That is from page 82 in "Audacity of Hope" where he is talking about Bush's judicial nominees and the GOP threat of the nuclear option to the Dems filibusters.

And Obama is right. Without a super-majority on his side, a president must nominate more moderate choices to the bench to get them approved. And that is why the filibuster is important to appointments, because it forces less extreme nominees.



To think you can cherry-pick one sentence from a 350+ page book and use it as evidence on where Obama stands, it's intellectually dishonest.