Judicial Nominations

Just four years ago, Senate Republicans were loudly condemning the use of filibusters to block judicial nominees. As early as next week, those words will be put to the test.

As Senators mull the qualifications for United States judges, should they not be required to display some minimal understanding of the process before undertaking this important task?

If conservatives insist on using slogans like "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench," then at the very least, such terms should be applied to liberal and conservative nominees consistently.

Pamela Karlan and, to a lesser extent, Gov. Granholm would be bold nominees, worthy of the first Supreme Court nomination by a President who himself has broken so much new ground already.

A diverse judiciary would increase respect for the law by reducing the visible bias against minorities and by providing role models for minority groups.

The fact that conservatives are planning to filibuster President Obama's very first nominee suggests that we can expect scorched-earth opposition to virtually all of Obama's nominees moving forward.

Judge Hamilton's nomination is a marked change from the judges chosen in the Bush era and it is exactly the change which Americans voted for last November.

It looks like President Obama will begin leaving his mark on the federal bench -- and consequently on American law and life for decades to come -- sooner rather than later.

Corporate-owned courts presided over by the business community's hand-picked arbitrators are fast becoming the rule, and a deeply ideological bench is only sometimes available as an imperfect alternative.

Conservatives have learned how to talk about judicial nominations and the future of the Supreme Court in ways that rally the base while not alienating the political center, and progressives haven't mastered this trick.

On The View, McCain fed into the argument that conservative "originalists" overvalue the 1789 text and undervalue the Amendments.