I know that I made this point just the other day, but I think it warrants repeating by highlighting this absurd statement from Phyllis Schlalfy on how President Obama must nominate a veteran to the Supreme Court to replace John Paul Stevens:
"The vacancy resulting from Stevens' retirement is significant because it means that the Supreme Court is at risk of being left without a single military veteran. For as long as I can remember, the U.S. Supreme Court has included at least one military veteran.
"Considering President Obama's weak and highly unpopular track record on national defense issues, specifically his decision to try known terrorists in criminal court rather than in military tribunals and his recent announcement about U.S. nuclear disarmament, it is critical that President Obama replace a military veteran judge with another military veteran judge. If President Obama can make this happen, it will certainly be a winner with American voters, but if he does not, it will reinforce his commitment to ideology alone and further erode the American people's confidence in their president."
"In the midst of two wars, we must protect our military from radical, anti-military judicial nominees. President Obama would be foolish to leave the Supreme Court without any veterans."
"The U.S. Senate, both Democrats and Republicans alike, should not allow President Obama to thumb his nose at our armed services by replacing the last decorated veteran on the Supreme Court with a non-veteran. Our brave men and women who risk their lives for our nation's security deserve better."
You know what Schlafly has traditionally hated? Quotas; judicial nominees who she suspected supported quotas; the use of quotas in the military; and especially "quotas in judicial appointments."
