"With all due respect..."

Asked Saturday night which existing Supreme Court justices he wouldn't have nominated, McCain's response was:

"With all due respect, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter and Justice Stevens."

In other words, McCain wouldn't nominate anyone he disagrees with. Who knew?

Obama, meanwhile, is taking flak from conservative groups for his answer, which actually included some reasoning other than saying activist judges are bad (Brown v. Board of Ed was the product of so-called activist judges, but we like to disregard that):

"I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he…was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution. I would not nominate Justice Scalia, although I don't think there's any doubt about his intellectual brilliance because he and I just disagree, you know. He taught at University of Chicago as did I in the law school."

From the Legal Times blog:

"It was clear last night that Obama’s criteria for selecting Supreme Court Justices are fuzzy, lack intellectual coherence, and are subject to his own whims," said Wendy Long, a former Thomas clerk and counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network.

Right. Because McCain clearly based his answer on qualifications and experience.

I'm not saying the Souter/Stevens/Breyer/Ginsburg set is superior to the Alito/Roberts/Thomas/Scalia set or vice-versa. What I am saying is let's stop lying to ourselves and acknowledge that presidents appoint justices who agree with their Constitutional views. PR flaks can spout as much BS as they'd like about how the other candidate would try to impose his own agenda through his nominations -- but, um, yeah... so would your candidate. Glass houses, dude.