Presuming that all customs and practices are universally applicable to every situation, by you of all people, is what's odd.

I suppose that mixed couples, whether mixed in the form of race, economic status, educational background, religion, employment status, military service, hair color . . . are likewise handicapped.

Sometimes something funny happens when they take a seat on the court. They don't always hold to the position folks thought they would have. Personally, I hope she proves to be a strict constructionist over the long haul. Others may wish differently. I suspect she will generally lean towards the left. I would be happy to be wrong. Not all of my opinions can be grouped and pigeon-holed left or right anyway.

I guess I agree with you.

Like everything else in the human condition, it depends. Some people are easily influenced and others are not. So there probably is no objective rule for predetermining presumed prejudice.

You guys are grasping at straws and trying hard to establish a moral equivalency where one does not exist--except in your own ( biased) minds.
But go ahead, if it makes you feel good.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Quite so, many jurist have stepped over their supposed line to the surprise of many a President and appeals attorney.

Well, yes. The logic works in cases where the person is required to be impartial. People don't hire Carville or Matalin to be impartial about anything. They are the opposite of the Kagan/Thomas situation.

That is the opposite of what they said.