SCOTUS Watch

I've been trying to find a post at all the blogs I read that encapsulates my position on who the President should nominate to the SCOTUS. I haven't found one so I decided to just write my own.
I have no preconceived ideas about who should be the nominee but I do have some about who shouldn't.
First and foremost, I would oppose Alberto Gonzales. I feel that nominating someone who is the architect of a legal justification of torture is a disgrace. That is my opinion and I realize it has nothing to do with his qualifications and his experience. I find it morally reprehensible and I think it has cast a pall of shame on this country.

After that, I have no specific feelings. I wouldn't necessarily oppose a pro-life nominee. I would most likely oppose someone who consistently judged against abortion rights. That is not to say someone who ruled against late term abortions or the like. But someone who didn't make exceptions for the life of the mother or someone who, through their rulings, created a wall of legality through which it was very hard to obtain an abortion (like Texas), I would have a problem with.

I'm trying to keep an open mind as much as I can. I feel the President has a real opportunity to lead. That is not to say he should 'pick a moderate' or somesuch nonsense. I feel he should consult with the Judiciary Committee. I don't think that is out of bounds. I think everyone in this country is gearing up for a fight and wouldn't it be refreshing if there wasn't one. Democrats will be just as responsible for that outcome. I hope they keep an open mind as most have said they will.

My fear is that the President will see this nominee as a 'give away' to the far right and choose someone who would easily be seen as 'activist' were his or her rulings found to lean to the left. He can almost guarantee there will be at least one more nomination during his term, if not two. He could very well view this nominee as a way to shore up the base and finally pay off that debt to the far right, while viewing subsequent nominees as his 'legacy' nominees. I hope that won't happen. That would be the definition of judicial activism.