"
It's going to be fun, fun, fun to watch the Democrats with this one. "
Not to mention the "conservative" Republicans [?].
"Harriet Miers? Who the hell is that? I never heard of her." Like that is important?
"Miers donated money to the Democrats in the '80's." Those spouting this drivel have no idea of what a Texas Democrat was in the '80's.
Harriet Miers is a "croney" of President Bush." How utterly boring and predictable.
The best is yet to come, when Harriet Miers is not confirmed because she is a Christian religious fanatic, an anti abortionist, and an originalist.
This one truly hopes for the filibuster fight of a life time over this nominee.
"Harriet Miers? Who the hell is that? I never heard of her." Like that is important?
Absolutely.
You have brought up a point that I have been thinking about for the last 24 hours. Roberts and Miers are the first nominees of the internet era. NEVER before has the public been so informed, so involved, so able to naysay.
And, speaking of strict constructionism, I'm not sure that all this input is what the framers had in mind!
Frankly, aren't we being a bit arrogant in all the second-guessing and attempt to micromanage a federal process?
The nominee is to be chosen by the President, who should have thorough knowledge of the person he picks. The Senate gets to examine (and nitpick) the nominee. The rest of us? We get to vote for our senators and tell them how we feel.
The representative system that our constitution describes demands that we, the people, choose our leaders wisely and let them do their mandated jobs.
All the blogosphere/cyberspace hammering is fun and interesting, but a truly new phenomenon. Time will tell whether it is healthy.