Muscatine

So it's her reference to her ethnicity and gender that you think disqualifies her?

Samuel Alito referenced his ethnicity during his confirmation hearing as something that he would bring to the court with him.

"...when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

[...]

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

[...]

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

And Justice O'Connor referred to her gender as something that she would bring with her:

“My experience as a legislator gives me a different perspective. Also, I bring to the court the perspective of a woman primarily in a sense that I am female, just as I am white, a college graduate, etc.

“Yes, I will bring the understanding of a woman to the court, but I doubt that that alone will affect my decisions,” she said. “I think the important fact about my appointment is not that I will decide cases as a woman, but that I am a woman who will get to decide cases.”

She even referenced the fact that Justice Thurgood Marshall's race played a part in his tenure on the court saying that he “imparted not only his legal acumen but also his life experiences.”

Furthermore, Reagan himself made O'Connor's gender a central factor to her appointment saying in a  1980 news conference:

"...within the guidelines of excellence, appointments can carry enormous symbolic significance. This permits us to guide by example, to show how deep our commitment is and to give meaning to what we profess.

One way I intend to live up to that commitment is to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court.

I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can find, one who meets the high standards I will demand for all my appointments.

It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists. I will also seek out women to appoint to other federal courts in an effort to bring about a better balance on the federal bench."

So seeing as how race/ethnicity and gender are something that Alito and O'Connor (and Reagan) touted as positives to their respective qualifications, I'm assuming you believe that there were "much better candidates out there" when these two were nominated as well. Yes?

Of course the interesting aspect of all of these quotes is that none of these people claimed that their race or gender made them a better judge than someone else of different background, unlike this latest candidate.  They merely stated that it gave them different perspectives.  Huge difference. 

I read very closely; thank you very much. Interpretation is left to the reader. If you post something I can shoot holes through, that's your problem. However, having gone down this road now:

" Basically, it's a catchall phrase that gets trotted out when a judge does something a critic disagrees with and therefore has little, if any, meaning whatsoever."

Your NY Times op/ed piece has "little meaning" then,  by your own admission. Thanks. So you disqualified your own post with this.

Oh, bigbrother, I just love it when you get yourself all in a huff after someone calls you out on a mistake. You always say "thanks" as though your mistake wasn't really a mistake at all but an integral part of some devious scheme to catch the person other asleep at the wheel. You puff your chest up and proclaim "disqualified!" and "failed!" and my favorite of the past: "you lose!" It's so entertaining to watch you get your undies all in a bunch while you strut and bluster. Not quite as fun as watching you play Inspector Clouseau and satiate you fetish with the Davises, but entertaining nonetheless. Too bad you're way off base, this time.

You called it a poll. Twice. It is not a poll. Nobody was asked any questions. It was simply an examination of the court records to see how many times each of the justices had voted to overturn congress. No variables. No subjectivity. Did they vote to overturn congress, yes or no. That's all it was. Not a poll.

Now if you want to believe that they are fudging the data, fine. Provide some proof. If you think they have misrepresented what they have done, fine. Provide some proof. Show us what the real numbers should be. Otherwise we're left to believe that we shouldn't believe the information because "bigbrother said so." Doesn't work that way in reality. Sorry.

And this "Interpretation is left to the reader" statement... Did you really say that? You can't be serious. This isn't a novel, bigbrother. Novels are open to interpretation. I'm sure you remember reading Lord of the Flies, right? That was open to interpretation. Deciding which element of society Piggy represented is debatable, sure. But not everything is open to the reader's interpretation. If that were so, I could interpret everything you've ever written as complete and utter gibberish. I could interpret nedl's redneck humor as a mating call to a hot cousin. And I could interpret hiroad's view of the Democratic party as a threat to my safety and well being. But not everything leaves the interpretation to the reader. Face it, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, bigbrother. Or, more appropriate to the situation at hand, sometimes a study of the data is just a study of the data.