Though don't expect them to be touting that fact anytime in the immediate future.
This nomination-regardless of what you think of Harriet Miers as an individual-is awful in every respect.
She'll be confirmed-with a miracle she won't-but that doesn't mean I have to sit here and be silent.
Not by any means.
Well, if she gets on in time, I think we'll see how she and Roberts decide cases by next July, which means we can hold the GOP accountable in the midterms, good or bad.
Popular vote? If strict Constitutionalists such as Scalia and Thomas read your post, they'd laugh at you. Nowhere in the Constitution does the popular vote have any meaning in Presidential elections.
You said: Without the votes of Republicans living in New York, California, Massachusetts, among all of the other states enumerated by this guy, George W. Bush would have lost the popular vote in 2004.
I hate to appear elitist, but under our constitution the popular vote doesn't really count. Sure, I am glad we won it, but we didn't in 2000, and Bush was elected nonetheless. The poster makes a brilliant observation. Most of those who oppose Miers are from states that didn't give the electoral, that is, constitutional, vote for the president.
I may or may not support the Miers nomination, but I like the fact that plain ol' folks identify with her.
(By the way, for what little it is worth, I am an attorney, out of a less than elite law school, UNC, and I could interpret the constitution better than at least 4 of the justices.... and I bet there are plenty like me with no apparent "judicial philosophies"....)