Given who else they could have picked, this is great news – and the first indication since the Stimulus Bill vote that our Congressional leaders are starting to realize that can’t just play business as usual with the comfy club while Obama and his shock troops are setting fires to burn the house down.

But we can’t let them get away with token gestures – we need to make sure that the other Republicans on judiciary will follow Session’s lead: pass the ammunition, protect supply lines from flank attacks, provide supporting firepower – and above all, not turn tail (or stab Sessions in the back) when the battle turns fierce.

Which it will – guaranteed. Maybe not over this SCOTUS appointment, but there are plenty of other Democrat attacks looming.

And Sessions needs our support too, to continue to hear from Republican conservative voters. It’s all too eacy to get sucked into D.C. bubbles and lose contact with the rest of the nation.

Others perhaps can better flesh this out.

Regarding his role on Judiciary, we want to support a conservative jurisprudence – that the process by which judges arrive at their decisions to

1) rule of law – that they examine what is the law rather than what they want it to be

2) impartiality – that the provisions of the law be applied to parties equally and not be swayed by partiality (or what Obama Obama calls empathy, which is a code for saying, I will tilt the scale so that the winner will be whom I feel should win).

3) Uphold existing rights rather than create new rights. The divide is that conservative jurisprudence views rights as being claims (protections) that individuals have against government intrusion – vs. liberal jurisprudence which “rights” as entitlements that the government must use its power to provide, even when that tramples on other people’s rights. The latter, of course, is a recipe for polarization and constant fighting over “rights” – which is what we see happening in our country.

3b) This also means that conservative jurisprudence aims to defend enumerated rights in our Constitutional documents (interpolation) versus liberal jursiprudence which extrapolates new rights by adducing external authority to the text.

Analogy: If we are a ship, conservatives will work to add ballast to the bottom of the boat, to make it more stable. Liberals build all sorts of new structure that extend over the side of the boats and shift weight to these extensions. This raises the center of gravity and moves it laterally such that the ship is more prone to capsize if the sea becomes choppy or stormy. Worse, if they go far enough and move the center of gravity beyond the ship’s side, they will capsize the boat outright.

That’s starters. Hopefully our legal experts can expound and correct me as necessary.