Feinstein told those gathered to hear her at a meeting of the L.A. County Bar Association that in her opinion the person chosen to replace Sandra Day O'Connor should be "balanced and Fair," and not come from either extreme.

She added that she could not vote to confirm someone she knew would overturn Roe vs. Wade, and "send America back to the 1950s."

She then proceeded to give a history lesson to those gathered, adding that the U.S. Constitution is "very specific in laying out how a Supreme Court nominee is chosen."

She said, rather forcefully, "Pursuant to the Advice and Consent clause, the president proposes, and the Senate disposes."

Does that mean she is predisposed to dispose of John Roberts?

She also reminded listeners that the Senate has rejected 27 of the 148 proposed judges to the Supreme Court since the founding of our nation - "almost 20 percent!" she gloated.

Feinstein then continued her history lesson, gladdening the hearts of judicial activists everywhere by extolling the virtues of the Supreme Court's rulings that have shaped "the will and the culture of this nation in ways that are everlasting and profound."

Her examples of things that shaped the will of Americans for the good? The court's defense of civil rights and privacy in the 60s and 70s ... and the court's having struck down the 1997 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Congress and designed to protect religious groups from unduly burdensome government action.

The senator is also proud of the Supreme Court's accomplishments in acting as a check on executive power. Her example? Perhaps undeserved presidential pardons? Underhanded executive orders? Attempted

The Bush administration's jailing of suspected terrorist Yasser Hamdi, and the High Court's subsequent ruling that "even an enemy combatant should be given a meaningful opportunity" to contest his detention.

Feinstein also lauded the Supreme Courts ability to protect the rights of an individual over the wishes of the government.

And what example did she give for this, you ask? Perhaps a case where someone was fighting for his home, his family, or her privacy? No.

She cited the 1990 case of Eisenberg vs. U.S. where, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court struck down a congressional statute that prohibited desecration of the flag of the United States as a violation of free speech.

With the criteria she seems to be employing to approve a nominee - if the above examples are her be-all end-all of Supreme Court virtuosity - it would be a wonder if anyone but Karl Marx got Sen. Feinstein's vote for the Supreme Court.

Editor's note:
Rush Limbaugh Says the War for the Court Has Begun! Find Out Details – Click Here Now