There should be no talk of "no difference" re: the Roberts nomination.

[LoZoccolo]

Ruth Bader Ginzburg was confirmed by the Senate in 1993 with a 97-0 vote.

John Roberts was opposed by 22 Democrats.

If the fact that 22 Democrats voted "yea" means the Democrats are the same as the Republicans, you'd have to believe even more that the Republicans are the same as the Democrats based on the Ginzburg votes. And that notion is laughable.

So lets not forget the role that you people who spread your distortion about there being no difference between the parties played in this whole thing: were it not for this lie in 2000, we wouldn't even be talking about Bush*'s nominees, because Bush* would have never gotten to the White House.

[jobycom]

1. Yep.

"No difference" only applies when comparing Roberts to any other nominee Bush would come up with.

[Czolgosz]

2. You simply do not know what you are talking about. Before her appointment

Justice Ginsburg had a very long career as a moderate judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

In contrast, Roberts has a short history as an extremest judge.

You are not just comparing apples and oranges; you're comparing apples and turds.

[LoZoccolo]

3. *crickets* n/t