Either he flunked or he didn't remember his lessons very well. The Senate is given the responsibiity to base his/her vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court using the criteria of whether or not that nominee will adhere to the United States Constitution - period. On the internet (and this blog) is copious evidence that she will subordinate the Constitution to a progressive agenda. Of course there is also her lack of experience in sitting on a bench.
So what does he lamely cite as justification for his vote? The Golden Rule - read one account and watch the video therein. For the uber-progressive who prides him/herself in their lack of knowledge of the Bible, the Rule reads, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
He never quite gets around to stating how he specifically applies the Golden Rule to his vote. Who does he think are the "others" in this vote scenario? I can only surmise that he believes that Kagan, and perhaps Obama, are these "others". But let's get back to the Senator's binding duties in this case. I propose that the "others" in this case are the American people - the citizens of this country who have a right to a Supreme Court that will adhere to the United States Constitution, and not some "living interpretation" of the same. It is our interests that Graham tossed under the bus as he kowtowed to the "politically correct" power brokers in Congress (some of whom we hope will be retired this coming November).
You Suggest: Audio downloads of Franciscan meditations
7 minutes ago