On SCOTUS nominations, any of the Democrats running will do the job.

[ProSense]

After two terms of Bush, the Repubs have already already gotten what they wanted: partisan hacks.

Any Democratic president would stop the bleeding.

[...of J.Temperance]

1. Agreed, and the SCOTUS nominations are MORE important than

All this almost obsessing about Hillary voting for the IWR as a reason for NOT voting for her.

Fact is, Iraq is done, it cannot be reversed, no matter how annoyed people get....the SCOTUS nominations deal with the future, and as they're lifetime appointments, they also deal with the futures of little kids growing up now....because the next two nominations, who'll probably replace Justice Stevens and Justice Bader Ginsberg, those two nominations will be making decisions on what the little kids now CAN and CANNOT do when THEY'RE adults.

[ProSense]

2. "Fact is, Iraq is done, it cannot be reversed..."

It's also about the future, and potentially a lot more devastating and deadly than the SCOTUS.

"It cannot be reversed," but it can be changed. That change (to salvage the future) needs to begin immediately.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. The SCOTUS gave us George W Bush

I don't know what can be more devastating than that.

[ProSense]

6. Like I said, they got what they wanted.

My comment was about Iraq and what needs to be done now/next.

[dflprincess]

3. But some Democrats might do a better job than others

Some Democrats might be less apt than others to appoint corporate friendly judges.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. Your post title is virtually always a true statement, lol

And that is why half of the posts being written on DU nowadays are being written, the argument over who would do a better job. But it is good sometimes to step back and remember that we are comparing Democrats to Democrats now. It all will get crystal clear to virutally all of us who will do a better job once we have a Democratic nominee running against a Republican in 2008.