Reid to oppose Roberts nomination.
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169924,00.html

Here's a point of contention for me.

Republicans catch heat for nominating somebody like Roberts to replace Rehnquist, yet Republicans didn't do anything to oppose an obviously radical liberal in Ginsburg.

Democrats won't ever nominate a middle of the roader or a conservative, while Republicans will nominate from time to time, liberals or middle of the roaders.

There is absolutely no sense of integrity in this nomination process ever demonstrated by the Democratic National Party, Reid included.

I read somewhere that for the nominations that turned out to be Souter and Ginsburg, Clinton talked to Orrin Hatch, told him who he was thinking about nominating, and asked him who he thought would be confirmable. Hatch suggested Ginsburg and Souter.

That might explain the lack of serious challenges to their nominations.

Souter was a Bush 1 appointee
 

IIRC.

Ginsburg was Clinton's only appointee. No, if you understand the Ginsburg rule, justices refuse to answer on sensitive issues, and the Senate lives with it. I believe you're in error about Ginsburg, but I'm not the master of all sources, so I reserve the right to be wrong.

Breyer was Clinton's other appointee
 

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Supreme_Court

Clinton got his very, extremely liberal appointees and the Republicans played ball. Bush has potential moderates causing the Dems to go ballistic, a la Kennedy and Reid.