Reply #4: You mean like this floor speech on April 21st?

[TayTay]

Are we really willing to allow the Senate to fall in line with the Majority Leader when he invokes faith to rewrite Senate rules to put substandard, extremist judges on the bench?

It’s not up to any one of us to tell another colleague what to believe as a matter of faith.

But I can tell you what I believe: When tens of thousands of innocent souls have perished in Darfur-when 11 million children are without health insurance-when our colossal debt subjects our economic future to the whims of Asian bankers-no one can tell me that faith demands this Senate spend its time arguing over a handful of judges. No one with those priorities can use my faith intimidate me.

It’s time we make it clear that we’re not willing to lay down and put this narrow, stubborn agenda ahead of our families, ahead of our Constitution, and ahead of our values.

The elected leadership in Washington owes the American people better than this. We must hold elected officials accountable and demand that Washington does the people’s business.

What’s at stake is far more than the loss of civility, or the sacrifice of bipartisanship. What’s at stake are our values as a country - like respecting the rights of the minority, separation of church and state, honesty and responsibility.

Every one of us knows there’s no crisis in confirming judicial nominations when over 90% of the president’s nominees have already been confirmed.

No, what’s at stake is something far greater - a struggle between a great political tradition in the United States that seeks common ground so we can do the common good - and a new ethic that, on any given issue, will use any means to justify the end of absolute victory over whatever and whoever stands in the way.

A new view that says if you don’t like the facts, just change them; if you can’t win playing by the rules, just rewrite them. A new view that says if you can’t win a debate on the strength of your argument, demonize your opponents. A new view that says it’s ok to ignore the overwhelming public interest as long as you can get away with it.

For what? For a so-called ‘nuclear option’ that seeks to put extreme, substandard judges on the federal bench against the will of the American people.

Why? Is it worth undermining our democracy on behalf of Priscilla Owens, who took contributions from Enron and Halliburton and ruled in their favor? Is it worth this distraction from the people’s business to confirm Charles Pickering, who fought against implementing the Voting Rights Act and manipulated the judicial system to reduce the sentence of a convicted cross-burner? Is it worth throwing out 200 years of Senate tradition to defend William Myers, Janice Rogers Brown and Bill Pryor, whom numerous members of the impartial American Bar Association deemed unqualified?

Mr. President, the fact that we even have to debate a nuclear option over these judges tells you this is all about one party rule and its quest for unchallenged power. It’s time to put Americans back in control of their own lives - and put Washington back on their side. It’s time get Washington under control, and that starts by restoring some accountability.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=236759

Hmmm, doesn't exactly sound indistinct to me. Sounds to me like a side clearly and unequivocally chosen and defended.