Kos catch­es var­i­ous Repub­li­cans say­ing that the next SCOTUS nom­i­nee will be extra­or­di­nary:

On the con­ser­v­a­tive side of the par­ty, Mr. Brown­back and Sen­a­tor Tom Coburn of Okla­homa, anoth­er mem­ber of the Judi­cia­ry Com­mit­tee, devot­ed much of their time for ques­tion­ing Judge Roberts to deliv­er­ing mes­sages to the White House about the impor­tance of over­turn­ing prece­dents sup­port­ing abor­tion rights.

In an inter­view last week, Mr. Brown­back said he would vote against a nom­i­nee who was not “sol­id and known” on cul­tur­al issues like abor­tion, same-sex mar­riage and reli­gion in pub­lic life. “If the pres­i­dent does­n’t nom­i­nate a sol­id nom­i­nee, that is going counter to what he cam­paigned on,” Mr. Brown­back said. And if such a nom­i­nee “involves a con­tentious bat­tle, then let it be.” “I think you are going to see a con­tentious bat­tle regard­less of who is nom­i­nat­ed,” he added, “even if it is Judge Robert­s’s twin brother.”

I hope Brown­back fights for such a nom­i­nee, because the Sen­ate would not let that nom­i­nee out of com­mit­tee. Which is per­fect­ly fair. The Sen­ate would look at the nom­i­nee, deter­mine him (or her) to be unac­cept­able, and ask for another.

Tech­no­rati Tags: Brown­back, pol­i­tics