Or, at least it was back when President Bush was nominating people like Miguel Estrada, whom the Democrats blocked as too far to the right for the mainstream despite his attempts to "jam the Senate's ideological readar":

Probably the most amusing of the lot is Senator Inhofe, who offers this gem:

But the Democrats, who cannot muster a majority to oppose him, are seeking, in effect, to change the Constitutional majority-vote requirement. By sustaining this filibuster, they are asserting that 60 votes, not 50, will be required to approve Mr. Estrada. If successful, their effort will amount to a de facto amendment to the Constitution. This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Those awaiting the punch line shall not be disappointed:

Inhofe, of course, recently announced that he would filibuster President Obama’s nomination of Judge David Hamilton to sit on the Seventh Circuit, because Inhofe is apparently afraid that Judge Hamilton is a secret Muslim. No word yet on whether Hamilton pals around with terrorists.

(Via Overruled.)

Reuters, via RSS feed:

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Souter to resign

Reuters - Liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter said on Friday he plans to resign, giving President Barack Obama his first chance to make an appointment to the nation’s highest court.

The actual story is slightly more sane, but says:

Souter usually sides with the court’s three other liberal justices.

… Souter belongs to the court’s liberal wing and Obama would be expected to name someone with a similar philosophy.

… Chosen for the Supreme Court by Republican President George Bush, Souter proved to be far more liberal than expected.

This has been all over the TV today, too, with the one on Fox News who is Steve Doocy (as compared to the one on that show who isn’t Steve Doocy) saying “Obama would really have to appoint an outright Socialist for him to find somebody more to the left of Justice Souter.” (Yes, there’s video.)

To correct the record, let’s go (of all places) to the Wall Street Journal, as linked and summarized by Think Progress:

The Wall Street Journal explained Souter’s legacy, writing, “Justice Souter was no liberal trailblazer,” but in recent years, aligned with the more liberal Justices on the most divisive issues including executive power, capital punishment, and race.

The Journal explains more clearly:

Justice Souter was a little-known New Hampshire jurist when Republican President George H.W. Bush elevated him to the Supreme Court in 1990. Influential New Hampshire Republicans vouched for his credentials, but he soon proved a disappointment to conservatives hungry for a reversal of precedents they opposed. Joining with Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy—moderates appointed by President Ronald Reagan—Justice Souter voted to limit, rather than overturn, Roe v. Wade, the 1973 opinion that recognized abortion rights.

Justice Souter was no liberal trailblazer, like the jurist he succeeded, William Brennan. But as the court’s center shifted to the right after Justice Thurgood Marshall’s 1991 retirement, Justice Souter increasingly found himself on the court’s left wing. In recent years, he has almost invariably aligned with Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer on the defining issues, including the executive powers asserted by former President George W. Bush, the constitutionality of executing criminals for crimes short of murder, and the extent government can consider race when seeking to promote diversity.

In other words, the conservatives are only calling Souter “liberal” because he’s not a batshit-crazy conservative. They don’t want “moderate,” they want Rick Santorum. Anyone else is liberal, including the non-batshit-conservative president who appointed Souter, George H.W. Bush

If you insist on viewing politics as a line from left to right, think of it like a football field. Souter is on about the right 40 yard line or so. The conservatives have simply taken up their goalposts and moved them 50 yards further to the right to imply that Souter is on the left side’s 10 yard line.

It was never true. It isn’t true now. These people are all dancing around behind their own end zone, and declaring anyone more than ten yards to the left as a socialist. They’re crazy, so this is expected. What’s still disappointing is to see the media going along with it, as usual. “Reliable member of the court’s liberal wing” is true only in the sense that Souter is “not a member of the court’s batshit-crazy conservative wing.”

There are no confirmable Supreme Court candidates who are anywhere to the left of the left side’s 35-yard line. All of the conservative nominees of the previous administration were to the right of the right side’s 20 yard line, and probably to the right of the 10 yard line. It’s amazing how they’ve so successfully moved the goalposts that, reflexively, the media says that “not batshit crazy” means “liberal.

Glenn Greenwald has another goalpost-moving example of how today’s conservatives would define Ronald Reagan as a “vengeful, score-settling, Hard Left ideologue.”