The conservatives would be funny on this if it weren't so scary. They say they don't want a judge to "legislate from the bench"...and then they say that Bush's choice is "not conservative enough" and does not "pass litmus tests"...etc....

They simply want a judge that will push conservative agendas and vote "the right way" on key issues, no matter WHAT former courts have said about the interpretation of the constitution! The issue of abortion, for example, is considered "settled law" by most courts, since it has been reaffirmed several times. Even John Roberts said he accepted it that way(although there is evidence that he ONLY sees it that way as a lower court judge). But folks like Alberto Gonzales don't want the court to be bound by any decision they disagree with....they want (1) all decisions to be open to change and (2) the court to be packed forever with judges who will vote conservative, no matter how many freedoms are trampled on in the process!

There is such a thing as a centrist judge, who will try to understand the Constitution, interpret it sanely and fairly, and not be an ideologue...but the new breed of conservatives quail at the idea of having a majority of judges that they don't control and who might see that the interests of the majority take precedence over the narrow moral views of a minority.

   I can best express what I am trying to say with an example:
If, somehow, it came about that there were only 17 Christians left in the country, the judges and courts and laws *I* favor would still give those 17 people full rights to worship God, practice their religion, not have abortions...etc... But if there were only 17 atheists left, I would expect that the courts, laws and judges would allow them to not be bound by religious practices and not be required to attend church ...and be allowed to employ abortion if it fit their belief standards!
    In short, there are areas that should not BE subject to majority vote...by judges, by legislators or by public opinion. We need to understand and define what there areas are...and the US Constitution, it seems to me, is a good general attempt to do that. It provides **freedom**, and suggests basic ways to ensure freedom. Unfortunately, 250 years ago there were situations that the frames could not anticipate, so the Supreme Court and Congress, working together, need to clarify into settled law, as best they can, how to maintain freedom so that one clever group of folks with special vested interests cannot stack the deck to impose their narrow views on others.

If this is not done, I would expect someday to see abortion be made a crime, no limits on guns, the 10 Commandments on every wall, all textbooks pushing creationism, and Christian prayer required at all events. Ridiculous? Not to listen to some of the fundamentalists *I* have heard! They'd vote for that setup in a minute! They dont want just to have their rights...they want their rights to be the standard!

And yes...this IS different in kind from what liberals would do if they could influence things reasonably.