How about a nominee who is an 'originalist', who believes that it is the role of the judiciary ONLY to interpret the law and the Constitution on the basis of its clear and original intent when written, doesn't believe in legislating from the bench (that's what legislatures are for), doesn't believe that the Constitution is a 'living, breathing, ever-evolving document', and doesn't believe that we need to look to Europe for guidance when issuing rulings and proclaiming public policy, most often at odds with the will of the governed, 'we the people' (that's what elections are for)? Would that be considered extreme-leaning partisanship? I suspect for most of the Left such a nominee would be most unacceptable. We threw off the chains of British tyranny once and have now settled for judicial tyranny? What a waste of the vision, courage and blood of our ancestors.
I would like Bush to nominate such a person. I don't know if he will, but that is the type of person I would like to see nominated. And I agree with Balladeer, whomever he chooses will be dragged through the mud and the Democratic leadership will fillibuster.
Maybe someday we will again have our rights restored, upheld and respected, where life is protected, and people are not deemed less than human and therefore unworthy of Constitutional protections due to illness, age, infirmaty and the burden or inconvenience those in such conditions may place on others. Maybe someday the exercise of religious expression in the town square will be fully restored. Maybe property ownership will once again mean ownership, with the owner retaining the right to sell or not to sell, and can't be forced to sell because the government can use the property for a lucrative tax windfall.
If so, then we can celebrate the true meaning of Independence Day again. As it stands now I can only celebrate the vision of our founders and the future possibilities.