They should have cases of them left over.
That's what I figure!! LOL
None the less, I will share this with all from the Opinion Jourral online (not my opinion - for discussion purposes.)
========================================================
The Case for Miers Since we are an inveterate optimist, we thought we'd round up some of the better arguments we've seen in favor of President Bush's appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. One encouraging sign is that Leonard Leo backs Miers enthusiastically: I have worked closely with Harriet in the past and I am very excited about the president's pick of my friend. . . . Her judicial philosophy is summed up in the statement she made this morning accepting the nomination: "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts and our society. If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the constitution." Leo is an executive of the Federalist Society, and we have worked closely with him in the past (he's co-editor of "Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House," which is available from the OpinonJournal bookstore), so his view carries considerable weight with us. Angry Left blogger Markos Moulitsas sees the nomination as a victory for his side: Several Democrats, including [Harry] Reid, have already come out praising Miers, which ultimately will only fuel the right-wing meltdown on the decision. . . . This is the sort of pick that can have real-world repercussions in 2006, with a demoralized Republican Right refusing to do the heavy lifting needed to stem big losses. That Bush went this route rather than throwing his base the red meat they craved is nothing less than a sign of weakness. For whatever reason, Rove and Co. decided they weren't in position to wage a filibuster fight with Democrats on a Supreme Court justice and instead sold out their base. . . . My early sense is that this is already a victory--both politically and judicially--for Democrats. We are not wholly unworried that Moulitsas is right, but the Angry Left's proven capacity for self-delusion provides us a great deal of comfort. Blogger Bill Dyer makes a pretty good argument against those who fear Miers will turn out to be another David Souter: To you, me, the Senate, and the public, Harriet Miers may seem as much of a blank slate as David Souter was when Bush-41 nominated him. . . . But that is emphatically not the case from the perspective of George W. Bush. . . . He knows, and he's always known, that the blame for an appointee who turned out to become "another Souter" would likewise be placed on him. It's a responsibility and an opportunity whose benefits and risks he sought, but that he obviously takes very seriously indeed, because from Dubya's perspective, Harriet Miers was the one prospective female nominee about whom he personally felt that he could be most certain in predicting what sort of Justice she will become. . . . When Dubya looks at her, he doesn't think "blank slate, might be a Souter." He thinks: "I know her, she's been my lawyer through thick and thin, and I know things about her judgment and character that nobody else knows about her, but that leave me entirely comfortable about how she'll turn out as a Justice." David Bernstein makes an interesting argument: What do Miers and [Chief Justice John] Roberts have in common? They both have significant executive branch experience, and both seem more likely than other potential candidates to uphold the Administration on issues related to the War on Terror (e.g., Padilla and whether a citizen arrested in the U.S. can be tried in military court). Conservative political activists want someone who will interpret the Constitution in line with conservative judicial principles. But just as FDR's primary goal in appointing Justices was to appoint Justices that would uphold the centerpiece of his presidency, the New Deal, which coincidentally resulted in his appointing individuals who were liberal on other things, perhaps Bush sees his legacy primarily in terms of the War on Terror, and appointing Justices who will acquiesce in exercises of executive authority is his priority, even if it isn't the priority of either his base or the nation as a whole. Such Justices may be coincidentally conservative on other issues, just as FDR's nominees moved the [Supreme Court] generally to the Left. Knight Ridder reports that "a former campaign manager says [Miers] opposed abortion rights while running for Dallas City Council in 1989": "She is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement," said Lorlee Bartos, who managed Miers' first and only political campaign and said they discussed abortion once during the race. "I think Harriet's belief was pretty strongly felt," Bartos said Monday. "I suspect she is of the same cloth as the president." This column is moderately pro-abortion, but if Miers disagrees with us as a matter of policy, that argues in her favor, for we are also pro-democracy, and Roe v. Wade is a constitutional and political monstrosity that should be overturned yesterday. If Miers is really a pro-life extremist, it's unlikely that she would vote to uphold it. John Kerry* has weighed in against Miers: "America can't afford a replay of the unrevealing confirmation process that preceded Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation. . . . Without a meaningful exchange during the confirmation hearings, there is no way to know how Ms. Miers views the Constitution, whether she's a strict constructionist in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas, or whether she will protect fundamental rights." This from a guy who claimed his "war hero" record qualified him to be president but refused to release his military records until after the election, and then only to a handful of friendly journalists. We wish we could say Kerry's opposition was an argument in Miers's favor, but the guy is so mindlessly partisan--he even opposed Souter!--that his words have no significance. None of this is to say we aren't still disappointed with the Miers nomination. There were so many plainly excellent prospects, and we would have liked to have seen the president call the Democrats' bluff and have a fight, which would have been good for both the Republicans and the country. We can only hope he'll have another chance to do so--and when that chance comes, the Republicans will still have a big Senate majority. * We'll stop doing these footnotes when Kerry supporters get the bumper stickers off their Volvos.