She's so bad, only two theories really make sense:

- She's being set up for a later withdrawal, to be replaced by an eminently qualified lunatic

- She's got knowledge of Plamegate internals, and they want to get her onto the bench in hopes of using separation of powers doctrine to keep it from being exposed

I guess it could be that Bush is such an idiotic, self-centered bonehead that he thinks loyalty to Bush is a qualification for life tenure on the Court. But how likely is that?

My favorite bit, from David Frum via Matt Yglesias: "In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met."

Yes, this fills all the slots available to bu$h. Not doubt the moron needs and wants to cover his ass and his cronies asses. She has no experience, plain and simple. A token favor for a token of his administration. Can this be any better than Michael Brown? Will we be able to see all the White House papers and advisements? Will the Dems have a spine on this nominee? Damn! The longer the Dems fight the nominee the worse they will look, but it will protect the court. Rove and his strategy, unreal!!
This is the antithesis of Ronnie Earle!

A line has to be drawn somewhere, and I see no better time than now. Considering the wrong-wing is coming out against her, we might have the makings of a temporary alliance between the parties to block the nomination. Maybe such an alliance would sponsor discussion on how to repair the Bu$hCo damages already done?

the poor woman looks loony. How old is she? As for lack of judicial experience.....why does that matter at all - the Rove Branch of Government will tell the Right Wing justices how to vote anyway.

This is very odd. But I guess she could be not so bad. I guess he could have picked someone much worse. The problem is that we don't really know anything about this person so it's really hard to tell anything.

My theroy is the B$sh co really don't care about the neocon's and thier agenda. They care about business and tax breaks and the like. They want judges that will make it easier for the rich to get the tax breaks and allow status quo to continue.

To be fair the Miers character seems surprising liberal, compared to whom they could have chosen; not that it makes her any more qualified, not a little less scary.

Looks like Miers covered up something for Bush.
http://pbrla.blogspot.com/2005/10/harriet-miers-records-record.html

It's over, why bother, Harry Reid likes her. I predict there will be no substantial opposition from the democratic side of the aisle. I would be happy with all no votes and/or just voting present to send a message that cronyism does not trump experience, but that won't happen.

It's just another typical insider "Heckuva Job" political hackery nomination. Political Loyalty and Cronyism above experience...isn't that what matters most to Bush.... and apparently democrats don't mind it either. The Dubya Principle, You will be appointed to the level of your loyalty and praise for Dear Leader.

Plus Miers knows where all Junior's dead bodies are buried, even from way back to the good ole republican club down in Texas working on his TANG record.

To address theory two, dj, she'sperfect for the job because she will recuse herself, or claim some sort of privledge from anything involving bush, all the way back to the Texas days.

How perfect is that?

And is loyalty not job one at bushco inc?

It only proves that they don't care what anybody thinks or says, only what they want, and they only care about what anybody does if it causes them pain.

That's why the Democrats should've voted no. It would've made it easier this time when rover picked somebody who looks reasonable, who doesn't scream wingnut, who hasn't stated that they plan on overturning Roe, sold their first born child to Satan, or any of the other things they will try to do but could never say.

it's this simple: anyone the chimp picks is a loser like him....

As Spock would say, "fascinating".....

As an older woman lawyer, I wonder if she can REALLY be a committed right wing "constitution in exile" loon (which Roberts likely is).

But her choice simply HAS to be based on a well known (to Bush) craveness to executive power, the love of smelling the chief executive's dirty undies (figuratively speaking, one hopes).

When the executive branch does not fear examination by the Court, that will truly be the route to American fascism.

I think Bush was going for another slam dunk choice. It'll be difficult to oppose her, and she'll probably be status quo for the supreme court. Bush basically replaced Rhenquist with a younger Rhenquist, and is replacing O'Conner with a younger O'Conner.

Those hoping for change on the Court have to be disappointed. Those hoping for status quo, like Reid, are probably doing the happy dance.

Bush's lack of popularity clearly force his hand in making status quo choices.

I don't know her position on legal matters, but she's pretty damn liberal with the eye-liner, isn't she? Spooky..

I don't think Bush actually cares about the isues of the religious right. He is as born again as he is a rancher, that is, he appears to support their issues but does so only for show and vote getting.
He won't actually care how she votes on these issues. What her nomination is all about is protecting what he holds most dear: corporate rights and powers and the support of the wealthy. Look for her to side with big business against labor and to protect the increasing power of the presidency.

Well, this is sort of like playing the lottery, the odds are against you, but most people never think about that. No paper trail, however she did serve a term on the Dallas city council, I wonder if any of her city council votes reveal anything about her.

T2 is right, that is a terrible picture, she looks like one of those talking parrots. Bush's look of unhappiness is presumabily because of other things, but who knows?

The left could talk about toe jam, and the right will start babbling about Ted Kennedy conspiracies and throw fits. What a bunch of whack jobs you neocons are.

yes rip, as bad as Miers looks, Bush is worse. I've seen several wire photos and in each one it looks like someone is inserting a drywall screw into the back of his neck. A very uncomfortable expression for a War President with a mandate. Maybe Fitz has him sweating a bit.

I don't know why everyone has their knickers in a knot. If it was President Bartlett and he had just nominated Mrs. Landingham to the court, would you be so excited? Remember, this crew makes their own reality. The only thing that seems to be real to Bush is when he "sees in ot the TV screens". Consequences? Those are for the little people.

Seriously, though, I've had more than enough of this unending cadre of Texas-based personal followers and political cronies being given delightful little assignments for which they're staggeringly unqualified. I agree that this must not pass. Her major experience seems to be practicing corporate law, with clients like Micro$oft, & Disney. She was volunteer chairman of the Texas Lottery Commission for several years and was then given the assignment to clean up the corruption and cronyism at the Texas Lottery Commission. In an odd way, I guess that makes sense.

After she "investigated" George's National Guard records, she was obviously a made woman. As White House counsel, I wonder if she was involved in the mysterious disappearance of the Roberts papers in the Reagan library.

Can we just agree that discussion of Miers' wardrobe, makeup and marital status are irrelevent? The dress color is atrocious and her eyeliner is frightening, but she's 60 and she's from Texas. And if I hear one more comment (not here so far) that Miers is a lesbian! That's neither here nor there. She's an unqualified crony and that's all that really matters. Let's not dillute the discussion with musings over her hair color.

ann, You have to admit, with a little more make-up she would look like a clown.

Of course Sen. Harry Reid is for Miers, for the simple reason she’s white.

When discussing the Supreme Court on Meet the Press, Reid commented on Scalia as a “brilliant” judge. He went on to call Clarence Thomas “an embarrassment to the country”.

Since Scalia and Thomas hold the same conservative views and no legal scholars have ever pointed to any Thomas written decisions as being anything but well reasoned and sound, the only difference would seem to be race.

When asked by Russert to give some example as to why he thought Thomas was such an embarrassment to the country, Reid stumbled and admitted he could not point to any specifics.

Reid can probably suppress the desire to form a mob with his fellow democrats, led by former Klan member Robert Byrd, to go burn a cross on the steps of the court, but his blatant racist views are just too strong not to come out sooner or later.

Dems wanting to knock this one down might find a few GOPers to partner with. The GOP wants a big win.

Steve, people have been talking about Bush's loose screws for years, albeit in couched terms. General Shinseki, Larry Lindsey, Paul O'Neill, Susan F. Wood and a slew of others disagreeing with him publicy for idiotic policy have been shown the door.

This choice represents a failure of imagination compounded with a desertion of the brain trust. Bush seems to be adrift, on his own. He's making choices for the Supreme Court like he's choosing a softball team. And not a winning one.

She can't be a lesbian. Between the Mississippi and California they lash gays to fenceposts and whip them to death. Seems she's still breathing to me.

A second thought: he has to get cronies on the bench to protect him from the probes and prosecution that's sure to come once he's left office.

She definitely looks like a troll

u.jest: Since Scalia and Thomas hold the same conservative views and no legal scholars have ever pointed to any Thomas written decisions as being anything but well reasoned and sound, the only difference would seem to be race.

I gather you are not now, nor recently have been, in law school. Thomas is not well regarded, even by scholars who are on his side of the partisan divide, for being "well reasoned." His entire methodology consists of determining what were the traditional prejudices on an issue at the time of framing, and ruling that those prejudices are controlling law.

Can anyone say sychophant?

And why don't the people in that picture have lips?

Follow the money.

dj,

I had no idea he was that deluded.

If anyone had told me that Thomas looked at the original intent of the framers in order to form an opinion, I would have helped Reid chain him to the back of a pickup truck.

Seems like Harry Ried is a supporter, and recommended her name to Bush. Does anyone know the connection?

you describe george bush as " a man with a screw loose" with all due deference and respect i wonder why you would write such a thing. it demeans many of your other points which are well written,logical and well presented. why engage in that sort of ad hominem attack which does nothing to elevate the debate to some higher intellectual plain.......i enjoy reaing blogs of all sorts but it disturbs me that on both sides they become strident and polarizing......otherwise this is a wonderful site to which i occasionally a comment such as this...jjj

u.jest: I had no idea he was that deluded.

I'm glad to have helped.

dj,

A classic example of trolling. Making shit up,

no legal scholars have ever pointed to any Thomas written decisions as being anything but well reasoned and sound

then using that lie as established fact to launch an attack, a reprehensible one at that, against some Democrat.

scalia has written many decisions that sound batshit crazy at times, and thomas is a hack, a pure, unadulterated (well, maybe) toadie who sucks up to scalia in vain, but ever hopeful for his inclusion as a truly "made" "man."

Miers is a hack, a political security blanket for bush, another mommy figure to try to replace that abomination he has of an actual mother.

I'm pretty sure I saw this all in a movie sometime, where the daddy had to keep fixing the stupidity and psychosis of the son as they manifested themselves in death and destruction.

Just waiting for the hero to expose it all for what it is, lock the boy up, humiliate the father into some act of recompense, and start putting the pieces back together.

perhaps the fraud knows that someday he is going to need a good and loyal servant on the case..when he's tried....and steve i have thought for a long time that something is the matter with gw..don't know what it is but he ain't right in the head..

Duckman,

"thomas is a hack, a pure, unadulterated (well, maybe) toadie who sucks up to scalia in vain, but ever hopeful for his inclusion as a truly "made" "man.""

I guess you forgot to include "uppity".

Let's not even consider he may have similar views through his own powers of reasoning. Hell, he's black. How could he come up with ideas like the "brilliant" Scalia?

You liberals sure seem to be kinder in your description of blacks when they remain uneducated, poor and grateful to your party.

First Harry Reid is reported to have positively vetted Miers, and now New Jersey's two Democratic U.S. senators said Monday they were pleased President Bush has nominated a woman to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

One of two things is happening here. Either the Democrats have totally capitulated, or else they are exercising the Samson Strategy.

Either way, this nation is hosed.

You liberals sure seem to be kinder in your description of blacks when they remain uneducated, poor and grateful to your party.

I believe you've made a mistake in assuming (or projecting) that criticism of Thomas has anything to do with his race - which it does not. I think your automatically assuming that anything negative said of Thomas is because of his race is definitely holding the man back. Critique or support him based on what he says and does, not on his race. And I don't think Thomas needs anyone to protect him because of his race, either. You're being paternalistic in your constant support of the man just because he's black.

So, Bush nominates an unqualified crony to the United States Supreme Court and the Democrats are guardedly pleased. It is a horrible state of affairs in this country when we think of a bad candidate for the Supreme Court and heartily approve (as Reid has) or relucatantly approve (paraphrasing Schumer, It could have been alot worse). Given the horrible state of affairs, we should be pleased that it isn't alot worse, as a qualified strict constructionist like Luttig etc. would be a far worse alternative than Miers.

As Democrats try to figure out how to make things better for our country in spite of our numerical disadvantage, George W. Bush has given us the ultimate gift: he royally wedged his own base. The first step toward taking back our country is winning in 2006, and that became alot easier with Bush's selection of someone who is almost certainly not a dogmatic conservative.

u.jest: Let's not even consider he may have similar views through his own powers of reasoning. Hell, he's black. How could he come up with ideas like the "brilliant" Scalia?

Even the "brilliant" Scalia has derided Thomas's jurisprudence, noting acerbically, for instance, that Thomas evinces no respect whatever for stare decisis. (Thomas is even more of an "originalist" than Scalia, and has no sense of deference to the legislature.) If you feel like arguing law, it helps to, you know, read some law.

ann,

That was exactly my point. Reid had nothing to point to when he was asked why he said Thomas was an "embarrassment to the country".

Can you imagine the mindless ranting that would have ensued if a black had been appointed by Clinton and the republican senate leader said the same thing?

Are there no bounds to the hypocrisy on the left?

CPJ is right. This is a big loss for the GOP. She's another freakin' David Souter. This nomination also shows how politically weak Jr. is right now. There is no way he could appoint another Scalia and have it go through.

Big Business needs representation on SCOTUS too, and who better than this.

What I have not seen mentioned is that as a long-time supporter of Bush and his current personal lawyer, one has to assume that either he overruled Rove, Cheney, Card, Gonzales et al *or* they didn't even weigh in at all on the choice.

So I wonder - are they so cowed by the famed Temper of POTUS that they didn't tell him "boss, that's a dumb choice" or did they go along with it because there is some agenda?

Possible agenda #1: Is this a stalking horse candidate, set up to be knocked down and to prepare the way for the next candidate who could be far worse but is unlikely to be not recommended by the Senate (who won't shoot down two in a row).?

Do not make the mistake of assuming that Harriet Miers will automatically recuse herself from any case that may come before the SC regarding shenanigans in the White House during her tenure there. Or anything else, for that matter. Remember Scalia's refusal to recuse himself in the Cheney/Energy Task force meeting records after going duck hunting with the VP while the case was before the Court. Judges at nearly all levels of our judicial system make their own decisions whether to recuse themselves when a conflict (real or apparent) arises. In the instance of Scalia and Cheney, the Justice had no confict of interest because he'd already made up his mind - thus, no conflict - real or apparent. Harriet will take the same tack. Trust me (as the lawyers say). (:>

dj,

You have the advantage. I have not studied anything in the legal community other than my various lawyer's bills.

But perhaps you would use your jurisprudence skills in explaining why a rigid adherence to stare decisis is a good thing? Are you advocating returning to the days prior to Brown v Board of Education?

Sometimes it takes people of moral certainty to say that even though a law has been accepted for a period of time, it’s not always right.

But perhaps you would use your jurisprudence skills in explaining why a rigid adherence to stare decisis is a good thing?

Who said rigid? Anyway, I was just pointing out that your own guy, Scalia, has punked Thomas on his one-dimensional legal reasoning. If Antonin Scalia is giving you a hard time for paying insufficient attention to stare decisis, you're a serious ideologue.

Are there no bounds to the hypocrisy on the left?

Well, there certainly are no bounds to hypocrisy on the right. I think it's poltics as we know it that is the problem. I think you are way off in your constant attempts to portray Dems as hypocrites when they don't approve of minority candidates or appointees. We have no problem with minorities or women candidiates or appointees when they are qualified.

Mein Gott un Himmel, I have run into crack hoes that look less frightening than this apparition. That being said, her nomination has one positive aspect. The extreme right wing is very upset, the Bible thumpers are ranting, and the Repugs are once again squabbling amongst themselves. Given all of the Repug's woes of the last few weeks, they seem to be bent on self-destruction.

Incidentally, Harry Reid should be excommunicated for his increasingly weird views.

Sometimes it takes people of moral certainty to say that even though a law has been accepted for a period of time, it’s not always right.

Then you would agree that SCOTUS should have long ago reviewed the legal travesty that is Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad! There is a connection made in that decision between corporate entities and the Equal Protection Clause and granting them equal status with living beings. Without this interpretation, corporations wouldn't have anywhere near the power they now wield so callously.

dj,

I have to defer to your interpretation of Scalia’s remarks on Thomas’s views of stare decisis, but I’m willing to bet it fell a great deal short of “an embarrassment to the country”.

Councilor, the question goes to credibility. If democrats insist on playing the race card daily, perhaps they should purge their ranks of overt racists.

u.jest: If democrats insist on playing the race card daily, perhaps they should purge their ranks of overt racists.

I'm pretty sure that it was you, and not any of the dems on this board, who brought the issue of race into our discussion. It's funny how that works.

ann,

I've heard and read a great deal of unrest among my conservative brethren today concerning Miers, but I have not heard or read one comment about her appearance.

This stands in stark contrast to what is coming out of the liberal commentators. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Surely, u.jest, you realize you've punked yourself in this thread?

One correction, Steve -- this is NOT a vacant seat; O'Connor will serve until her replacement is confirmed.

Kos has an interesting "pass the popcorn" post, and I think he's correct -- let the Wing Nut base disintegrate into accusations of betrayal, while the Dems let the process play itself out. If she is as frightfully unqualified as she seems to be, then she will not be confirmed. And if the Fates are smiling on us, a certain Grand Jury will hand down indictments of Bush, Cheney, and the whole rotten den of thieves -- and there will be an end to these insane BushCo nominees.

geez, if you can't make fun of somebody's picture on a Blog....what's the country coming to? I seem to remember quite a few GOPer snipes at John Kerry's mug. And for a Righty to even use the word "hypocrisy".....thats, thats, well, hypocritical.

pessimist,

Santa Clara v Southern is just the type of case that Thomas could help clear up.

The travesty of having corporations pay income taxes stems from this poorly decided case.

I'm glad you support change.

She's another freakin' David Souter.

From what I've read, back in 1975 when Ford nominated Stevens, the judicial commitiee Democrats were told to keep everything as smooth as possible and put him in quickly. The only record I know of that might disclose anything positive or negitive would be her term on the Dallas city council. If nothing else, it might show how she feels about issues dealing with government power and policy whan she was a policy
maker. Her council record may give a clue as to whether she should be "put in quickly" or vigorioussly opposed.

I've heard and read a great deal of unrest among my conservative brethren today concerning Miers, but I have not heard or read one comment about her appearance.

I haven't read all of the comments on the right wing blogs today, but I'm sure there are some nasty comments about her eyeliner and sexual orientation. Regardless, it is not hypocritical for a Dem to comment on her appearance...it's just silly.

While we're on the subject of the Supreme Court and Scalia, who believes he’s participating in a theocracy:

"...The mistaken tendency to believe that a democratic government, being nothing more than the composite will of its individual citizens, has no more moral power or authority than they do as individuals has adverse effects in other areas as well. It fosters civil disobedience, for example, which proceeds on the assumption that what the individual citizen considers an unjust law—even if it does not compel him to act unjustly—need not be obeyed. St. Paul would not agree. ‘Ye must needs be subject,’ he said, ‘not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.’ For conscience sake. The reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible..."

In my country, I was taught that the government derives its authority from the people:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Could combatting the tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government as effectively as possible include handing down unprincipled and partisan decisions to halt the counting of legally cast votes as Scalia did in 2000?

This man is a proto-fascist menace and should be removed from the bench.

Her alleged reference to Bush as the most brilliant man she'd ever met was either a veiled swipe at all men, a glaring indication of her syncophancy or a bonafide reason to question her mental acuity.

No, I think you have it a little wrong. Bush has always been for Bush. He will let the wingnuts think he is on their side when he needs their votes. The fact of the matter is he only does what is profitable for Bush. You are correct his motivation is to cover his ass and he may have some very good reasons to think he needs to do that. Yes, he sold out the wingnuts. How sweet it is!

snark,

Apparently, until the mid '90s she was associated with liberals.

It's not hard to understand how someone who was exposed to democrats her entire life was would judge the first conservative she met (GW Bush) as "brilliant".

J.West: Sometimes it takes people of moral certainty to say that even though a law has been accepted for a period of time, it’s not always right.

Good God, man! Are you advocating judicial activism!?

According to the Christian Science Monistor, this lady's got some qualifications, but having never been a judge, I don't think she's good for a seat in the highest court in the land.

I remember Jon Stewart saying that Gonzalez would probably be the nominee, since the president said looked at him knowingly when he brought up the topic, "unless he's being a big dick."

Wonder what's gonna be on The Daily Show tonight...

And just as an FYI to jwest, on the Huffington Post, the troll commenters are tearing themselves up calling Meiers a "lesbo" and equating her with Hillary Clinton whom they also assume to be a lesbian. Hardly respectful of the nomination by the President.

duke,

How's the colors in the U.P.?

Judicial activism occurs when judges try to legislate from the bench what could not possibly be enacted through congress.

Righting a previous decision that goes against the constitutional rights of the people is a way of correcting previous “judicial activism”. Also, as times and circumstances change, certain decisions need to be updated, though not at the expense of individual rights.

ann,

I'm shocked and disappointed that you would even read the tripe from Huffington.

I realize that there are some inarticulate posters even on my side of the aisle. But you have to admit, the vast majority of personal attacks on any issue come from democrats.

u.jest: Righting a previous decision that goes against the constitutional rights of the people is a way of correcting previous “judicial activism”. Also, as times and circumstances change, certain decisions need to be updated, though not at the expense of individual rights.

Here, you're not realizing--or not admitting--the fundamental reality about the originalists:

Every once in a while, the application of an ostensibly originalist approach results in an expansion or maintenance of individual rights. Scalia has written some opinions striking down flag-burning statutes and warrantless thermal searches, for instance.

But generally, originalism sacrifices the interests of the individual to those of the sovereign, be it one of the several states, or the federal government. Individuals have less autonomy, and particularly less autonomy relative to the State, than they did before the Rehnquist Court. Individual states have more.

Clearly, Bush is not Brilliant. He is a self-professed C student, marginal businessman and governor, poor president. SO, if nothing else, Ms. Miers is either a poor "judge" of humanity or the world's biggest kiss-up artist. How bout them qualifications!

I must say, she does look an awful lot like a Red Hat Lady

Sorry for the appearance comment.

dj,

Paraphrasing Kingsfield, you entered law school with a skull full of mush, and apparently there is some still sloshing around in there.

I think if you look at the hierarchy of conservative decisions, they would place individual rights at the top, followed by state and then federal. This is the exact opposite of liberal judicial priorities.

jwest, hardly a day goes by that I don't hear snide comments from the right. In fact, I was thinking about this recently, how my Republican brother makes disparaging comments about the poor, how they're stupid and just living off the government, how they should have known better than to stay behind when Katrina was on the way, blah, blah, blah. You hear nasty comments like that ALL the time on Fox, Limbaugh, that ilk. Don't pretend you haven't heard it. That's just pathetic. At least try for some intellectual honesty.

From the left, however, you rarely hear those sort of blaming comments. The ones about Meirs and her appearance are just absurd. But they aren't to bring her down.

And now that I think about it, seems to me there were some very, very nasty things said by the right in respect to Janet Reno.

I'm shocked and disappointed that you would even read the tripe from Huffington.

I like reading the angry troll comments. They crack me up! Huffington Post gets way more crazy, angry trolls than TLC. It's amusing.

T2,

Einstein was less than a C student. Perhaps in a liberal utopia he would have been sent off to a trade school for shoe repair.

Brilliance comes in many forms. A political genius like Rove or a “big picture” leader like Bush may confuse small “policy wonk” thinkers, but if you look ahead 50 years, your grandchildren will be celebrating GW Bush day at their voucher funded school.

Barbara Streisand exhibits brilliance every time she sings, even though she’s a political idiot.

You have to admit, for someone you folks think is so dumb, he sure seems to win a lot.

u.jest: I think if you look at the hierarchy of conservative decisions, they would place individual rights at the top, followed by state and then federal. This is the exact opposite of liberal judicial priorities.

Wow. That's quite a mountain of evidence you've produced there.

Oh, and let's not forget the nastiness from the Reps about Hillary's hair, sexual orientation, etc.

A political genius like Rove or a “big picture” leader like Bush may confuse small “policy wonk” thinkers, but if you look ahead 50 years, your grandchildren will be celebrating GW Bush day at their voucher funded school.

Or working in a sweatshop. Or dead from lack of food or medical care.

Einstein was less than a C student. j. west

You never back up anything you say with evidence and this time you're busted.

Keep 'em coming u.jest, I don't think you've made a foolish and easily refuted statement on the Iraq war yet today.

As a ragin' Liberal, I think we should pass her on through. If we reject her, we will get someone really terrible. I don't believe the minority party can reject two in a row. Passing two in a row is seen as neutral, so we have no "political capital" by passing Roberts, except a small brownie point of non-partisianship. Her taint fron BushCo will be a weak spot we can use later.
Please, let's play some go-around here, and take this choice. I bet every Lib/Prog here was really pleasantly surprised when this came out.

ann,

I know the left's perception of Fox and Limbaugh are how you describe them, but that is not the case.

As for your brother, well, I won't even go there.

The left today is filled with the most vile, venom filled personal attacks due to their lack of defensible positions on any issue. The hate for Bush has overridden any sense of fairness that was in short supply on the left to begin with.

Janet Reno? She was just butt ugly.

rlp,

Have you been hiding in the bushes all this time just waiting for me to fall victim to an urban legend?

I stand corrected. I in no way meant to demean the memory of Albert Einstein, his family, friends or pets.

From now on, I will assess each individual's intelligence based solely on the grades they received in school.

As it has been pointed out to my chagrin, I'm not the best researcher on this board. In an attempt to avoid any further embarassing mistakes, could someone look up Al Gore's grades for me?

So, anyway, Miers is a bad nominee. But maybe worse for Bush than he thought.

Sorry, jwest, I watch Fox just so I can know what I'm talking about.

Clearly you do not listen to Demcratic leaders such as Schumer, Emmanuel, Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, etc. because you would know that they are reasonable, intelligent people who do not stoop to the petty sniping that you attempt to attribute to them. I have not heard what you choose to characterize as "vile, venom filled personal attacks." Perhaps it is your own blind hatred that makes you hear these things.

And one more time, because I know it's hard for you to remember, but we don't hate Bush, we hate his policies.

Coyote,

You seem to forget, this is not my full time job.

During the day, I’ve got workers to oppress, money to steal from poor people and a number of other conservative things that occupy my time.

You, on the other hand, have a legion of liberals standing at the ready with reams of leftoid literature at their fingertips waiting for one minor error they can pounce on.

One thing you have to admit, it’s not boring when I’m around.

Ha! Caught you thinking!

From now on, I will assess each individual's intelligence based solely on the grades they received in school.

Cool. So you now admit that Bill Clinton is brilliant and Wesley Clark may be the smartest man involved in politics currently?

ann...ann...ann,

The only one on your list who doesn't use personal attacks daily is Obama. If you listened closely to his speech at the convention, you will know he's much more a republican than a democrat. Watch for him to switch parties.

Another one to watch is Artur Davis (D) Alabama. Caught him on CSpan the other day. This guy apparently knows he's a republican, but he needed to run as a democrat to win the district from an anti-semitic democrat.

His main theme was that no amount of money or government program could solve the problems with his district without a change in personal responsibility.

jwest, you have a hard time understanding the difference between opinion and fact. I keep forgetting there's no use commenting with you.

Thank you for attempting to save me from my political beliefs and change my mind and change what I have heard, I deeply appreciate your concern. But, you have had no impact. None. And as God is my witness (and other TLC posters, please keep me honest) I will no longer attempt to engage in discussion/debate with jwest.

j. west,

Almost none of us do this for a "living." Let me give you a clue, I googled "Einstien" and the first entry was the one I used, it took me all of 45 seconds to refute you.

Hiding in the bushes? Don't flatter yourself, I just had a little bit of journalism experence in school and learned to check facts before publishing.

ann,

I'm crushed. Out of all the liberals on this thread, you were the one Karl and I thought could be brought to the dark side.

There is a difference between opinion and fact. But, just like possessing a photographic memory in law school, the mere possession of facts is no guarantee that you can process them into usable opinions.

Ann, you have a gift for reasoned thought. You say you don't hate Bush but hate his policies. You don't engage in the hate speech of the others and you have a truly compassionate nature. Why you're not a republican is beyond me.

However, if you can not stipulate that Schumer, Emmanuel, Clinton and Pelosi spew pure personal attacks at every opportunity, I guess it's best for us not to engage anymore.

A little intellectual honesty goes a long way.

I find it amusing when the troll starts thinking about taking its ball and going home.

Only it's not its ball.

Put on all the airs you want troll. Ya got nuthin.

wondertroll reminds me of those people that is so arrogant and confident that they aren't afraid to speak up, ask questions, and continuously voice their opinions. But.... the more they do that the more they reveal just how stupid they really are.

hey ann, being (almost) complimented by wondertroll is like being called ugly by a frog ;~P

j.west, Is employed by some bu$h corporate scum sucking company just to start some shit on a liberal blog site and see how many post he can get it up to. He switches daily among his personal favorites. He then reports back to his chief, with all the subversive material he's attained and then logs it away for future indictments. When the reich decides it's time to have complete command, he will produce the aforementioned matertial. Being the good little troll, he will have served a most useful subject. He will be rewarded by eliminating those who were his most devious and cunning linguistic adversaries!

hey ann, being (almost) complimented by wondertroll is like being called ugly by a frog ;~P

I know, I was touched, really. But then I remembered....he's always insincere in his compliments. Or they are at least the backhanded compliment. Either way, I was as unimpressed with his attempt to woo me back into debate as I was with all of his previous posts.

Once a troll, always a troll.

Once a troll, always a troll.

It could be an episode of Jerry Springer.

"Her alleged reference to Bush as the most brilliant man she'd ever met was either a veiled swipe at all men, a glaring indication of her syncophancy or a bonafide reason to question her mental acuity."

Snark, I'll take "mental acuity" as the answer.

"I know the left's perception of Fox and Limbaugh are how you describe them, but that is not the case."

LOL You just proved once again what we know to be true. You guys lie through your f**king teeth. Next you will be telling us that Limbaugh is a moderate.

Judith,

Compared to me, Limbaugh is commie pinko.

J.west:How's the colors in the U.P.?

It's still pretty green in Marquette, but some of the leaves are starting to become golden and red. It's pretty nice, and I hope to get some good pictures to send back home to California, where trees are a rare breed. Sugarloaf Mountain makes for an excellent view of the town. You can only see two buildings amid the vast number of trees. I'm loving it here: I just hope the snow doesn't get too heavy this year. I haven't seen snow in nearly five years, so it's going to be a real culture shock. The native Yoopers up here love to poke fun at my California history, with its lack of frozen landscape.

Judicial activism is such a loaded term anyway...would it make it right to use judicial activism again to overturn something judicial activism brought about in the first place? If it's really so hated across the board, why aren't there, say, anti-abortion amendments to stop that kind of thing? You admit that it's necessary sometimes, as Brown v. Board of Education illustrated. One man's judicial activism is another's constitution-savior, I suppose.

bbtb,

Better sleep with your tin foil hat on real tight tonight.

If I can just focus my Xenon Ray Impure Thought Finder and zero in on your location, you will be dragged from your bed and placed into one of our secret corporate re-education camps.

Duke,

The folks back in California don't know what they're missing. I kept a house up near Harbor Springs for a number of years, and the colors in the fall are amazing.

Don't try to keep up with the Yoopers partying this winter. It takes years of practice to roll drunk and naked down the snow covered hills.

On activism, I guess it does depend on whose ox is being gored. I can't think of any conservative activist actions to point out (I'm sure there is one, you googling vultures waiting to swoop down on me) but on the left side I would just point to the 9th Circuit, where some of the craziest rulings come from.

Satistfaction is a hundred posts! Hey, j.west?

When the time is right, she will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

googling vultures waiting to swoop down on me

Careful jay, if the days seem darker and the nights longer...well, they've got medication for that by now, never mind. LOL

(diabolical Vincent Price-like LOL)

When the time is right, she will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Here's what I wonder, though, Judith. What kind of case would have to come before the SCOTUS to even allow such a vote to happen? I tend to think they will continue to chip away at Roe v. Wade through parental notification laws, late term abortion bans and waiting periods.

Ann, as a leader of the bar, Harriet Miers was a very strong proponent of conservative legal views. She led a campaign to have the ABA (American Bar Association) end its practice of supporting abortion-on-demand and taxpayer-funded abortions.

Harriet Miers' former campaign manager, Lorlee Bartos, says Miers opposed abortion rights while running for Dallas City Council in 1989. Bartos further stated that Miers is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement and that her beliefs are very strongly felt.

Knowing that Bush has a litmus test for his judicial nominees, I have no reason to believe that she is not Pro-Life. I do agree that "chipping away rights" will continue. It is also possible that a so called Human Life Amendment would be a Constitutional Amendment overturning Roe v. Wade. There is currently no such Amendment pending, but proponents regularly introduce Human Life Bills in Congress, so the threat is always present.

What kind of case would have to come before the SCOTUS to even allow such a vote to happen? I tend to think they will continue to chip away at Roe v. Wade through parental notification laws, late term abortion bans and waiting periods.

Ann's right: the constitutionality of an abortion ban is already settled, so until some state deliberately writes a ban that clearly defies that ruling, just to see whether it will be upheld, Roe v. Wade itself is safe. The action will be in the Casey situations--what are the "reasonable" burdens that we can place on women's access?

djmoonbat and Ann. You both are correct. However, if your goal is overturn Roe v. Wade, there is always a way. States can pare the access to the point that there is no access, like in Missouri. Blunt is trying his damnest to accomplish what Asscroft could not.

I just heard about her efforts with the Bar Association today. At least she was unsuccesful. I agree she is an anti-choice nominee, and I hope that I am right that they won't find a way to overturn Roe v. Wade. I see lots of chipping away in the very near future and that is not good. But overturn Roe v. Wade and lose the right's biggest wedge issue? I gotta wonder on that one.