Miers Leaves White House With No Regrets

New York Times ^ | 30 January 2007 | AP and NYT Staff

[shrinkermd]

Conservatives and liberals alike battered White House counsel Harriet Miers during her 24-day rise and fall as a Supreme Court nominee.

Critics questioned her experience, her judicial beliefs and her grasp of constitutional law.

Now, preparing to leave the White House more than a year after the ordeal, Miers says she doesn't regret the experience. After being nominated, she heard from childhood friends. Strangers came up to her to say they were happy for her.

''Through the course of the nomination there were some ugly -- I thought unjustified -- comments,'' Miers said in an interview in her West Wing office. ''There were many, many wonderful aspects of the experience that get lost because people don't focus on that.''

Miers, 61, is being replaced by Fred Fielding, a lawyer in the Nixon White House and President Reagan's chief counsel who is viewed as better versed at handling the legal fights the new Democratic Congress is expected to have with the administration.

The president got high marks for choosing John Roberts as chief justice of the United States, his first high-court nominee. But on Oct. 3, 2005, when he announced he had picked Miers, his loyal legal counsel, to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the right wing of their own party skewered both Bush and Miers.

[shrinkermd]

First, thank you Harriet Miers for your exemplary and dedicated service to President Bush and our country. You have spent a lifetime in devoted service to others. Surely, this characteristic of anonymous service is not found in Washington DC and more particularly not in the inner sanctum of SCOTUS.

You were indeed qualified to be a member of SCOTUS. The allegations leveled against you were cheap shots suggesting you were another stupid Evangelical who really didn’t know what from when. Looking at the issue closely, I find that The Constitution of the United States is a very readable document. Even an average person like me fails to understand why lawyers, especially conservative lawyers, see it as a hermeneutic challenge.

Apparently, according to conventional, inside-the-beltway-wisdom the Constitution is now a super Rorschach card (inkblot test) where each and every SCOTUS member reads whatever they believe into the document. Solipsists with underlying beliefs, then, are the preferred members of the court with one exception.

That is the Court must have Blacks, Jews, Roman Catholics and tepid Protestants—no practicing, observant Evangelicals allowed. Don’t drown me in the statistics. Just read George Will and the other bow tie conservatives and sense their shock and scorn.

Further, let us face the fact that the scattering of races and creeds on SCOTUS merely belies it is now a super parliament usually populated by elites vetted by the MSM sufficiently thoroughly to become the judicial oligarchy that rules and over rules our faith and beliefs. You would have been a welcome addition on the Court regardless of where you fell on the liberal/conservative continuum. You could have decided on a simple reading of the Constitution plus what society is, has been and will be. After all, supposedly in a limited government the bulk of our devotion and belief rests in the common culture.

I would be derelict in my moral duty by pointing out this quote by Ann Coulter, ''However nice, helpful, prompt and tidy she is, Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on 'The West Wing' let alone be a real one,'' conservative writer Ann Coulter said in one of the more cutting comments…” A cheap shot from a woman who specializes in boyfriends old enough to be her son and never discusses her family life which seemingly she can keep private even though she is a more public person than the usual elected official. Other than having what some believe to be outstanding looks and others see it as a troubled form of affectation, she makes her money by cleverly trashing the reputations of others. Harriet Miers she was a good enemy to have! Even though we shortly will have her latest provocative poses placed for the 1000th time on FR, she is no conservative—conservatives respect civility and Ann belongs with the Dowd wing of the RAT party.

What did Lincoln say about you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time? Yes, many out here in "boobsieville" were not fooled—you did a great job for a great man and would have made a great SCOTUS justice. Thanks.

[fatnotlazy]

"You were indeed qualified to be a member of SCOTUS."

***

Certainly no less qualified than those who did ascend to the high court and those who came before her. In fact, we've had quite a few UNQUALIFIED jurists in the past and some might say more than a few on the S.Ct. right now. The allegation that she was unqualified because she did not previously serve as a judge was a bogus excuse.

[misterrob]

"A cheap shot from a woman who specializes in boyfriends old enough to be her son

Proof?

[shrinkermd]

Ask Her. It is in all the gossip columns. The latest is a rock musician.

Why not ask her. You will never get an answer.

[sine_nomine]

Talk about cheap shots.

Let's stick to the issues.

I recall Harriet called pro-life demonstrators "terrorists."
So was she pro-life? Was Bush honest?

[linda_22003]

Since she's not married to anyone, is there any reason this would make the remotest amount of difference?

[AFPhys]

I am in full agreement with all but one of your paragraphs.

Thanks for posting a final defense of Harriet Miers' nomination.

[Pondman88]

Nice.

[Wolfstar]

If Barack Obama is qualified to be President of the United States, then certainly Harriet Miers was more than qualified to be a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Although I had lost respect for the more hard-edged type of conservatism awhile back, the Harriet Miers episode completely alienated me from mainstream conservatism.

[Cold Heat]

Well said...

The Meir's issue, among others has split the base asunder, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.

It will be interesting to see just who inherits the reign of the republican party. I am quite prepared to pack up and move if required, but I don't think it will be necessary.

There is obviously not room for all, primarily due to one faction trying to usurp the other.

In time, this will be sorted out.

In the interim, the country will enter a chaotic political period as we devolve and reform, but the self destruction is inevitable. Let's hope the process can be completed by 2014.

See you at the polls.........

[Non-Sequitur]

"You were indeed qualified to be a member of SCOTUS."

To say that someone is qualified is not to say that they were the best choice for the job. Harriet Miers was far from the best choice for the job.

[flashbunny]

doesn't matter. She was good enough and she was appointable when no one else was!

Oh wait, alito made it through. Nevermind!

[nathanbedford]

My take on Harriet Miers was markedly different from yours. Harriet Miers' nomination was a jump the shark moment for me with George Bush. This is not a reflection on Harriet Miers but a reflection on George Bush.

I know the conventional wisdom is that George Bush has learned from the mistakes of his father especially his father's death rattle: "read my lips no new taxes." But apart from this lesson George Bush seems to have learned nothing from his father's experience.

The entire Katrina fiasco was little more than an instant replay of the bludgeoning his father received in the wake of hurricane Andrew here in Florida.

Moreover the appointment of Harriet Miers was reflective of a regrettable tendency in the president to engage in cronyism. His appointment of Brown at FEMA led to the debacle of Katrina. His appointment of General Myers' niece is a replay of this vice.

But ultimately the appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court betrays a lack of understanding of the significance of the appointment, the standards required, and the stakes involved for his administration, his party, his nation, and his constitution. It also stands as a betrayal of the people who gave him the very votes he solicited as he explicitly promised them he would appoint a conservative in the vein of Thomas and Scalia. It reveals George Bush to be utterly insensitive to the bitter disappointment caused by previous appointments such as Justice Souter and others as they came out of the closet and betrayed themselves to be rabid liberals as soon as they donned their black robes and assumed power until the very day they die. It signaled that President Bush, despite his campaigning for votes to the contrary, is indifferent to growing threats our judiciary as presently constituted poses to all the precious constitutional prerogatives of his constituents

The problem with Harriet Miers was not Harriet Miers herself. It is that she was an unknown quantity and the president had absolutely no business imposing such a risk on us.

In this jump the shark moment George Bush betrayed himself to be aligned not to a conservative philosophy, not to a conservative movement, not to a Republican Party, but to a tribe, a tribe of cronies who govern by noblisse oblige

[Wormwood]

Harriet Miers' nomination was a jump the shark moment for me with George Bush. This is not a reflection on Harriet Miers but a reflection on George Bush.

I believe the scales fell from my eyes around that time as well.

In all, an excellent post. Thank you.

[Iwo Jima]

I agree with your comments except with respect to Ms. Miers being an unknown quantity. She was not an unknown quantity to me and many others. She was a known quantity and unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she had any skill in vetting candidates, she would have taken herself out of the running.

I bear her no ill will, but I am glad she is leaving the White House.

[Democratshavenobrains]

The most hilarious thing is that if the Lefties had just put aside their Bush hatred for one millisecond and praised this woman, she might have gotten through.

BUT NO! Instead they got a smart young conservative white male.

[Non-Sequitur]

doesn't matter. She was good enough and she was appointable when no one else was!

Apparently she wasn't appointable when no one else was, or she'd be on the bench right now. And fortunately the Senate made sure we didn't have to settle for 'good enough'.

[shrinkermd]

I guess your hero is:

"This article is about the Confederate soldier; for his grandson see Nathan Bedford Forrest III Nathaniel Bedford Forrest (July 13, 1821 – October 29, 1877) was a Confederate army general and an instrumental figure in the founding and growth of the Ku Klux Klan.

"Forrest was perhaps the American Civil War's most highly regarded cavalry and partisan ranger (guerrilla leader). Forrest is regarded by many military historians as the war's most innovative and successful general. His tactics of mobile warfare are still studied by modern soldiers.

"After the war, Forrest's reputation suffered because of his KKK involvement and revelations that his troops murdered prisoners after the Battle of Fort Pillow, most of which were African-American.

[DrDeb]

EXCELLENT!

[KantianBurke]

bravo! well said.

[nathanbedford]

I guess your hero is:

You do not have to guess you can simply go to my "about page" and read exactly how I feel about Nathan Bedford Forrest.

[nathanbedford]

Since my original post I found two more which were posted during an evidently slightly after the time of her nomination. Here is the first, the second one will follow in a subsequent post.

I am glad you opened this thread because it gives those of us who do not know how to react to this nomination the space to say so.

Here is a small nugget which might lend some confidence to the pick: Dick Cheney has been all over the airwaves reassuring conservative listeners of talk radio that this nominee indeed has the right stuff. I find is reassuring because, frankly, I feel more comfortable with Cheney's conservatism than I do with Bush's. Clearly, it can be inferred that Cheney has been in on the vetting process and has lent MIER his imprimatur. In my view, Cheney is not the kind of a man that can be sent out as a lackey to spin for the administration unless he has helped to shape the matter beforehand.

I also want to say that I am on record in this forum as long ago is at least one year posting my view that Bush is not primarily a conservative but first a Christian, then a man of intense loyalties, and finally a conservative when that philosophy does not conflict with the first two characteristics. We will have to see whether Bush selected this nominee because she's a Christian, a loyal ally, or a conservative.

Finally, an unrelated word about Pat Buchanan. He is a curious man, who gets so much right but so much wrong. I can recall his speech at the convention in which he was roundly criticized for observing that America was at war, a cultural war. Time has borne him out, he got that part absolutely right. Our paladins in this war wear black robes and wield gavels. It should not be so but it is the left that has started this war and it is the left that has converted our Constitution and our precious rule of law into the battlefield. Like the war against Islamo-terrorism, the war for the cultural soul of America must be won or our democracy will not be worth having.

I count the importance of selecting a supreme court Justice to be no less important than the choice of a field commander in the war against terror. When viewed from the lifespan of our children many of whom will easily live to be 100 years of age, the selection of a Supreme Court Justice might very well be more important than the selection of a general in the field. This pick must be seen in the context of our childrens' lives and, as such, we're contemplating whether their liberties and democracy can survive the next century in this cultural war no less than democracy's survival chances in the war against terror. Why then did Bush nominate a woman who was already 60 years of age? Why then did Bush nominate a woman about whom I, and indeed every other informed FReeper, must confess that he does not know how to react to the nomination?

[Basheva]

Absolutely agree.

I worked in both of George Bush's presidential campaigns and have been very disappointed in his lack of conservative commitment.

A president only gets a chance or two (if lucky) to appoint to the Supreme Court - it is a momentous decision. This decision hs the possibility of affecting the country for decades.

At at time when the left/democrat party has upped the stakes by threatening to filibuster a nominee, a candidate must be chosen with outstanding professional qualifications, judicial temperament, judicial record, as well as conservative credentials. Must be someone well known in lega/judicial circles. A relatively unknown person - one not easily defended as the very best choice - starts out the process already in negative territory.

Harriet Miers, with no judicial decisions in her curricula vita, was a difficult nominee for the conservative electorate to assess and therefore support.

[nathanbedford]

(rereading this post is painful. It predicts our debacle in the November elections and identifies the causes. It was all so unnecessary. I think you'll find my comments respecting Bush's faith to be of interest.)

As a result of the policies of the Bush administration, Republicans have forfeited their formerly kryptonite hundred year claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Contrary to what Rush Limbaugh says, the Democrats do have an affirmative program, it is to be the party of fiscal responsibility by raising taxes and cutting spending. They will point out that the Republicans are the party of fiscal irresponsibility because they have cut taxes and increased spending. Because Bush and the Congressional Republicans have sought to buy votes with federal spending rather than cut spending in all areas apart from national defense, it is now the Democrats who can plausibly say that it is they who are fiscally responsible.

Their argument will not convince us but it will be persuasive enough, especially when supported by a full-court press from the whole of the mainstream media, to blur the fundamental distinction between the parties and perhaps gain the next election by confusing a fair portion of the electorate.

Thus we have wantonly kicked away one of the legs of our stool. Another leg of the stool was comprised of our ability to go to the electorate, as George Bush did successfully in the last two elections, and persuasively argue that we were the party of judicial integrity. That we were the party which manned the threshold to the Constitution like the Patriots at Thermopylae to check the ravening horde of liberals who would sack the Constitution like a city which had succumbed to a siege.

The Harriet Meir nomination in a stroke has needlessly compromised our ability plausibly to appeal to the electorate as the party which stands on constitutional principle and eschews judicial opportunism.

We are now left with only one issue which separates us from the Democrats, national security. Like it or not, ever since there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, we've been on the run on this issue. Yes I know we won the last election on this issue but the tide has clearly turned. Watch Hillary contrive to present herself as a plausible candidate who is strong on defense.

Why did we saw off two of our three legs? On the issue of spending some would say it is because Bush was never a conservative. Others would say that it was the war that did it but that would not be the whole truth, at least that would not be the whole explanation. Others would say that it is simply the nature of a politician to buy votes with other people's money and the temptation, even to Republicans, is irresistible.

My own view is that our present dilemma is the product of a little bit of each of the above. For years now I've been posting my view the George Bush is not essentially a movement conservative but a committed Christian. Here's what I've been saying recently:

The truth is straightforward, as usual. Bush is first a committed Christian, then a devoted family man who values personal loyalty to an extreme, and third, a conservative when that philosophy does not conflict with the first two. In this appointment, Bush believes he has satisfied all three legs of the stool. This is what I posted yesterday:

On the limited evidence available, I do positively believe Bush appointed her because she has been reborn. I mean that quite respectfully. I mean that he is counting on her being a new person. Most of the time it means she will vote conservative. But I honestly do not think Bush appointed her to vote conservative. I think he appointed he to vote in the SPIRIT.

The sad thing for us conservatives is to contemplate just how unnecessary the debacle over Harriet Meir really was. One can understand the fear in the legislative heart of retribution from constituents as their snouts are pulled away from the trough. One can even understand Bush's, or perhaps more accurately Rove's, trepidations in dealing with immigration arising out of fear that they will be called racists and out of the desire to pander to portions of the business community. But the whole nomination fiasco is almost uniquely unrelated to identifiable political or policy considerations. In the absence of such temporal explanations, I am left with the conclusion that Bush has selected her because she's Christian.

[Ben Ficklin]

Harriet Miers is another symbol of the split in the GOP.

Cultural conservatives were stridently opposed, while others thought that she would better on non-cultural issues such as federal regulation.

[geezerwheezer]

If you got paid by-the-word on these posts, you would be really rich.

[nathanbedford]

As the King said to Mozart, "Your music has... too many notes, yes that's it, too many notes."

[geezerwheezer]

True, but people liked Mozart's music more than they liked the king.

[Wolfstar]

Once again, the man whose hero founded the Ku Klux Klan fouls a thread with his bilge.

[bray]

Some "conservatives" have to go to the whip on Barbosa too!

Pray for W and Our Troops

[Sloth]

If you honestly think Miers was opposed because she was perceived as an 'evangelical', you must be smoking some strong crack.

[ichabod1]

Barack Osama is NOT qualified to be POTUS.

[ichabod1]

Besides, she wore too much makeup.

[Basheva]

****Besides, she wore too much makeup.****

I know you meant that with humor....but...yanno....I'm really tired of Republican women being critiqued on their makeup - like Harris in Florida.

Republicans don't dare do that to democrat women.

[Wolfstar]

No kidding.

[twigs]

From the beginning, it sounded to me as though Ms. Miers did a very good job for the president. He trusted her completely and she served him well. That did not make her a qualified Supreme Court nominee, however, but that was stopped. That mistake was the president's doing, not hers. She has served well and we all ought to be thankful for her.

[nathanbedford]

FReeper announces breakthrough in cure for the Ad Hominem Distemper-an Analogue of Tourette's Syndrome

I have pondered a while now the best way to help you, Wolfstar, with your condition. It is indeed perplexing because the regular nostrums like Ritalin seem to be of no avail. I debated offering personal counseling and I considered that I could recommend some rehabilitation centers where they can, with modern drugs, ease you through withdrawal before you embark on a 12-step program. But these are usually quite expensive and, barring a successful intervention, the patient has a very poor prognosis because he is unwilling to accept the treatment.

All the modern authorities report that the majority of patients once released from rehab inevitably wander back to their keyboards and commit the sin of personal attacks within a matter of hours. Alas, the hard and bitter truth is that the AD HOMINEM DISTEMPER which afflicts you and so many others with access to the Internet, has no known cure, as a recent article in The New England Journal of Medicine under this very title has concluded. The statistical relapse rate has been truly disheartening. That is, until now for I have by the grace of a benign Providence hit upon the solution to your compulsion which no doubt will be published in the next edition of the Journal under the working title, FReeper announces breakthrough to cure the Ad Hominem Distemper-an Analogue of Tourette's Syndrome. I will be pleased to send you a reprint upon request.

It all came to me as an epiphany when I contemplated your symptoms. The malady is easy to describe: The unfortunate patient, unable to deal with the substance of what he reads and bereft of factual answer for it, resorts to attacks against those whom he regards to be the author of his misery, much like the ancient Pharaohs who cut off the heads of messengers bearing bad news. Our modern Pharoah cannot, of course, physically decapitate anyone in ether-space so he becomes a mighty potentate astride his own keyboard and lashes out to assassinate the character of these cyber devils. After he has pushed the Reply button and sent his screed into cyberspace, he enjoys a rush of adrenaline and a psychotic high which, of course, is inevitably followed by a deeper low from which he cannot emerge until he finds another victim for his calumnies. The disease is progressive and up until now there has been no known cure. But I have found the certain cure and I am willing to give it away, free and without charge, out of Christian concern and solicitude for a fellow conservative. You may consider this to be charity but I am also motivated in the interests of science. Since my motives are altruistic you will observe below the absence of any claim of copyright for my breakthrough, I exact no excise for my good works. I do this not just to save you - but for all humanity, that is, to save all humanity from you.

My prescription, like all brilliant breakthroughs which are obvious only in hindsight for their simplicity and brevity, is analogous to the practice which has developed on the Rush Limbaugh radio program in which the caller, to express a whole series of complementary observations merely has to say: Dittos -and all is perfectly understood by everyone with no trouble or bother or any loss of time.

My antidote for your Ad Hominem Distemper is simplicity itself: Whenever you feel an attack coming on do not resist, for that only leads to the cold sweats, rather, you should embrace it because, after all, acceptance of the disease and your powerlessness over it are the first steps in your recovery. Do not try to avoid your keyboard but eagerly reach out for it. We know that you have nothing to say about the substance of the matter, we know that you've been confused by the reality with which you have been confronted, we know how feverish and insecure you feel as a result, we know how much you feel the need to blackguard someone. Nevertheless, go confidently to your keyboard without any anxiety that you will compulsively vituperate - as though you were some wretched victim of Tourette's syndrome - and take your keyboard stoutly in hand to gallantly type the following:

TOUCHÉ

(recent results of phase lll clinical trials have shown that the better course of therapy is to encourage the patient to write the word in italics and in bold letters because it seems to bolster self-esteem, a pathological deficiency common to all these unfortunates)

Now there,Wolfstar, don’t you see how much easier and lighter you feel in your soul? Instead of betraying to the world the poverty of your intellectual estate, you have made a clean breast of your ignorance, which is different from rank stupidity, and it is anyway the first step in your recovery program. More, you will be awarded points because you show the world that you are a bigger man and by no means petty. The therapeutic effects of this balm cannot be overestimated. Phase llB and pivotal phase lll clinical trials have shown that, although my remedy may be sublime, it is not wholly perfect because it brings no cheap and easy rush, no high, but then no crash either, no withdrawal, no need for the next fix. Instead, you can have your life back.

Your friend,

Nathan

[Wolfstar]

Wow! Did I count eight characteristically long-winded, pompous paragraphs in response to my wee post? Tsk, tsk, Nathan. You're slipping.

[hinckley buzzard]

Ask Her. It is in all the gossip columns. The latest is a rock musician.

I'd ask you--why do you think Ann Coulter's private life is any of your business? And what does it have to do with the Miers candidacy? As for your rant about Miers, I'd guess you got most of that from "all the gossip columns" too. It's incoherent.

[shrinkermd]

Sorry you feel that way about me. If you read the article Coulter described Miers as being unable to be a West Wing SCOTUS let alone a real SCOTUS. She had not basis for her criticism and offered none.

Coutler and her cohorts can pass it out but not take it. Someone, in a public forum, is bound to ask her personal questions that she has thus far avoided while attacking others--don't forget she got her start counselling Paul Jones.

[hinckley buzzard]

if the Lefties had just put aside their Bush hatred for one millisecond and praised this woman, she might have gotten through

The lefties were praising her. To high heaven. That should have been everyone's first clue. She was a halfbaked pro-abortion feminist with no discernible philosophy much less a strict constructionist. She was shot down by conservatives because she promised to out-do Sandra Day O'Connor in being a go-along-to-get-along scatterbrain--raw meat for the Ginsberg/Breyer/Souter cabal to subvert.

[NittanyLion]

I have to say, that's one of the finest posts I've ever read on this forum. I haven't seen better analysis from any other source.

[hinckley buzzard]

I didn't express any feelings about you. I critiqued your comment. Ann Coulter is not the subject of the thread but since you brought her up--in addition to being an astute observor, she is an attorney and former Law Clerk for a Supreme Court Justice. I think that gives her some credibility in evaluating potential court nominees, besides her well-grounded conservativism.</p>

[nathanbedford]

True, but people liked Mozart's music more than they liked the king.

Duh.

[nathanbedford]

have to say, that's one of the finest posts I've ever read on this forum. I haven't seen better analysis from any other source.

Thank you you are very very kind to say so and I genuinely appreciate it especially after having been accused of publishing "bilge."

[shrinkermd]

Does being a lawyer give you the right to egregiously insult a person nominated for SCOTUS? Of especial importance, Coulter did this without any real contact or information on Miers.

She was born in 1961. Counseling Paul Jones to not settle the Clinton civil suit was her entre' into big time conservative circles. IMHO her demeanor is vicious and not humorous; she never describes her remarks and insults as attempts at humor.

She surely is popular on FR--especially her pictures. Quite a coup for a 47 year old woman to be a pin up girl.

And, yes my post was about Coulter and all those who quickly judged Miers with little or no information. All they had was knowledge of her religious persuasion and she worked for the President. She never even got a hearing before a Senate panel.

Being fair minded and balanced is the sine qua non of maturity. Being civil is a cardinal virtue of "conservatives." Coulter and her associated critics were neither in respect to Ms. Miers.

[Cold Heat]

She never even got a hearing

That fact got lost in all the accusations.

Looking at this thread, this particular nominee who never received a hearing, was enough to sour them against Bush! (as admitted by two posters)

What is even more disturbing, is that the majority of this forum is waiting with baited breath for the media to announce a front runner Republican candidate so that they can go on the attack. LOL!

Might as well write this turkey off fellas......We ain't goin anywhere soon. We are "Meired" in the political muck called hubris.

[scrabblehack]

Harriet Miers did get judged harshly. However, if you looked at the scant record of David Souter prior to his appointment, you would think he was a conservative, so I can well understand conservatives being skittish about Miers.

Also, Senate hearings of SCOTUS nominees tend to be short on information. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sandra Day O'Connor, and others repeatedly said, "I can't answer that -- it would be a violation of ethics." William Brennan went even further -- he kissed Joe McCarthy's butt when he didn't have to.

So no, the time to present your views on constitutional issues is before the nomination is made, not after.

[shrinkermd]

"...So no, the time to present your views on constitutional issues is before the nomination is made, not after.

So who does that? In practice it is the MSM, pundits left and right and various special interests.

They in all their wisdom do not use reason. For the last 200 years we have believed rational inquiry leads to truth. Presently, postmodernism has infected the body politic such that we engage the social beliefs the person has rather than the reasonableness of their nomination, opinions of the nominee or the nominee's ability to be fair.

Presently, SCOTUS, I repeat, is nothing but a supra parliament and to claim great experience in Constitutional law was necessary in Miers case was ill advised and wrong. It is true that virtually every SCOTUS Justice since 1851 has been a lawyer but until very recently people not in the practice of law or on the bench were routinely accorded nomination and approval.

All the big, necessary political battles center on who gets to nominate SCOTUS and, then, if they can win Senate political approval.

Once accomplished we are all then to obey a judicial oligarchy who have lifetime appointments and no way to remove short of impeachment. The only thing we will know for sure is they are vetted for being "elites" and possessing a disposition favorable to one political view or another.

[LibKill]

Sorry, but Miers was not conservative. She at best was moderate. Better than Ginsberg but not half as good as Alito or Roberts.

Bush won with the help of CONSERVATIVES. When it came to Supreme Court appointments, it was PAYDAY for CONSERVATIVES.

We wanted the real thing, not 'conservative lite'.