Activist judges? You must be kidding!

From WaPo. Our President out on the campaign trail today.

. . .

Bush, who later flew to Michigan, also strongly criticized Democratic senators, including Edwards, for failing to confirm some of his judicial nominees from North Carolina and Michigan. "Their nominations are being held up, and it's not right and it's not fair . . . ," Bush said. "These judges deserve better treatment in the United States Senate. A minority of senators apparently don't want judges who strictly interpret and apply the law. Evidently, they want activist judges who will rewrite the law from the bench. I disagree."

. . .

I posted this Monday:

Caught this over at Tom Paine:

Early next week, the Senate will consider two nominations for lifetime seats on important courts: Thomas Griffith to the Federal Court of Appeals (second only to the U.S. Supreme Court) and J. Leon Holmes to the Arkansas District Court. Griffith's record includes hostility toward Title IX, which gives women equal status with men in scholastic athletics, and practicing law without a license. Holmes' view of women is positively archaic: he's said that "the wife is subordinate to her husband," and, in supporting an anti-choice amendment in Arkansas, refused to even allow an exception for rape victims. Join the National Women's Law Center and contact your senator to let them know you won't stand for these appointments. Call the Senate at 1-888-508-2974 to oppose Holmes, and ACT NOW  to oppose Griffith.

It won't make a difference who wins at the ballot box if the courts are stacked. Let's hope none of the Supremes decide to retire before the election, or none of the more liberal justices, heaven forbid, die.

Bush has the nerve to complain about activist judges when he puts these two up for the federal bench? You've got to be kidding me. It's like "The Wizard of Oz". Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. These guys want to rewrite Roe v. Wade and many other laws protecting our personal freedoms.