Having it both ways: John Kerry and Joe Lieberman were asked for their thoughts on any Supreme Court nominees the president offers up. Said Kerry:

"If this president tries to send us a nominee to the court who is determined to turn back the clock on the rights of women to choose or the constitutional rights of Americans, I will filibuster that nominee."

So it's ok if a nominee has decided, before ever hearing a case, how they would rule on an issue. Maybe not:

"If I feel that President Bush nominates to the Supreme Court a justice that I don't feel is independent or I feel is on an ideological mission or who has basically prejudged cases before they are heard," Lieberman said, "I will either join, or if necessary lead, a filibuster against that nomination."

These guys are just tripping over themselves to pick a fight. But how can a nominee be both independent (not on an ideological mission) and satisfy the candidates' pro-Roe determination?