Can't be more blunt than that.

Senator Kyl answered questions about the Roberts nomination from the Arizona Daily Star on Wednesday. And it's the Arizona Daily Star, not the Tucson Star as the Phoenix bloggers keep wanting to call it. Newsflash, you self-absorbed Maricopans: any community in Arizona can focus on statewide issues.

Anyway, here's a sample of the hackery we've come to expect from our junior Senator:

What qualities would you like to see in a new justice?

The key qualities are judicial temperament, intellect, experience and the ability to approach cases honestly and without preconceived bias.

Well that sounds fair. Who doesn't want a Supreme Court Justice with those qualities? It would be nice if Kyl actually meant it. He wants nothing more than right-wing idealogue like him.

Do you know enough about John Roberts to make that decision?

I do, but on the other hand, there is still testimony to be given and questioning to occur. If nothing else changes, I will vote to confirm.

That's funny. Nobody else does. But what else does he have to know? Roberts is opposed to affirmative action, women's equality, individual rights and personal privacy. Everything Kyl looks for in a nominee.

Here's a gem:

How can you be sure you're getting what you think you're getting?

No one can ever be sure. Look at how many divorces we have in this country. Look, there has been more documentation released, more pages of information by John Roberts than by any other nominee.

Uh, what the hell does divorce have to do with it? Good thing you're working so hard to protect families by making sure that the homos can't get married and subsequently divorced. Oh, also, Senator Jackass, those pages of documentation haven't really given any information that makes Roberts more desirable. If anything, they've made him even less confirmable than before.

How long will it take?

I predict he'll be confirmed ... the last Friday in September.

Lord have mercy. Senator Kyl puts Miss Cleo to shame. Sure they're both shysters, but his scam could cause some serious damage to America's future.

And finally, this doosie:

You have always supported a "right to life" position on legislation concerning abortion. Are you satisfied, without asking, that John Roberts does as well?

That assumes I believe that the significant thing is to put people on the court who agree with me politically. If that's the case, then let's just have another legislative branch. I don't want to be setting up a test for judicial nominees based on their political views or ideology.

But you do believe that, Senator. Saying otherwise doesn't change the facts. Then again, this is classic national Republican strategy: say what people want to hear but do what you want to do. "No litmus test" is a lark that politicians from both parties use to deflect attention from their partisan agendas. I just happen to support one of those agendas, but I still wish the politicians would be up front about their ideology.

But then that would mean being honest with constituents so we could make better informed voting decisions.