[BigV]

Excerpts:

The praise section:

Sandra Day O'Connor joined the nation's highest court in 1981 as the first woman ever appointed to that position. Throughout her tenure she has been a discerning and conscientious judge, and a public servant of complete integrity. Justice O'Connor's great intellect, wisdom and personal decency have won her the esteem of her colleagues and our country.

Under the Constitution, I am responsible for nominating a successor to Justice O'Connor. I take this responsibility seriously.

Now he invokes the Constitution. Because now it is convenient to do so and it provides good cover. His opponents will be "against the Constitution". Staking out the boundaries of the battle.

I will be deliberate and thorough in this process. I have directed my staff, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to compile information and recommend for my review potential nominees who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.

Emphasis mine. Not unreasonable in any way, but certainly an incomplete list. Whomever is nominated will certainly (hopefully) carry all these qualities, but also their own individual personalities as well. Of course. The question is whether the nominee will be more centrist or more conservative, and how intensely so.

As well, I will continue to consult, as will my advisers, with members of the United States Senate. The nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court Justice that Americans can be proud of. The nation also deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate, characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote. I will choose a nominee in a timely manner so that the hearing and the vote can be completed before the new Supreme Court term begins.

Emphases again mine. Will he submit a nominee that is sufficiently acceptable to the Democrats in the Senate that a vote will be had? Or will the vote only come after Frist changes the rule by triggering "the nuclear option".

The technique of "changing the rules" or "moving the goalposts" to be able to say a standard was met is frequently used by this administration. When the established rules are inconvenient, like the ability of either party to exert some control over the debate by delay (filibuster), the rules will be changed to favor the Republicans (in this case). Y'know, to me that's just not fair. In a simple human way. We agreed on something, and then the agreement changes. That's what chafes me the most.

Gonna be an exciting news summer. This may not be the only SC battle...