[Nephi]

You're asking Allen H, whose convoluted logic for supporting Miers is essentially because Bush, the Nixon Republican, couldn't count on the liberal wing of the senate to go to battle with him on a Luttig, JRB, Edith Clement or Michael McConnell, (jurists the Christian right hoped for,) he had to settle for an unknown, (who is known for her Christianity) and now, it is the secularists that are opposing her nomination that was made to make the Christian conservatives happy who aren't happy with her nomination afterall, to explain someone else's view?

This should be fun.

[Cedric]

We implore you, sir, stop digging!

[Allen H]

See, this is why you're not worth conversing with because you are all snappy comebacks, and no real content or foundation in fact and reality. EZ clearly asked for one of the anti-Miers posters to spell out some facts and really get to the meat of things, and your response was a stupid smart comment. I'm able to respond to what people say in detailed fashion, and you are STILL unable to do that. You're just a supply of smart comments and glib comebacks. Not someone involved in or even equipped for a real debate.

[ez]

Actually, it was a rhetorical question and you missed it. I'm not surprised. The point that didn't penetrate your dense mental defenses was that YOU were not privy to conversations that Bush had with Leahy, Schumer, Frist, et al, and that quite possibly, W. gave you the best judge you were going to get. Read it again, you'll see it for yourself.

[ez]

PS As if to highlight your poor reading comprehension, you also missed the fact that I was asking YOU to explain it, and not Allen H.

Do you even actually read this stuff?