Ok, number of my Freeper buddies alerted me to this thread, which is a continuation of last night. Why you and few others here insist on lying about me and what I said, I don't know. I didn't approve Kennedy. I reviewed his resume to ensure it was accurate. He was interviewed by scores of people, including Ronald Reagan. He lied about his pro-life position. Why do you harp on this? This should be a lesson to all of us to do a better job, not a lesser job. I will not return here, but the lies and venom by certain of the Miers supporters is truly pathetic. You might want to go to Moveon.org, because you make no points here.
True....but the point that many are making including me is that vetting is not an exact science, that paper trails and pedigree are a guarantees of absolutely nothing. Even seasoned professionals make mistakes.
Bushs 14 years of first hand experience with Mier's gives him an insight into her judicial philosophy that may never be discerned through traditional paper trail analysis and vetting.
If that was really Mark Levins, he needs to develop a thicker skin. Two or three posters harped on this point I think.
Since he's made this question so enticing, I'll pick it up.
The salient point about Levin's vetting of Justice Kennedy is that one never knows when reviewing a resume. Anyone who has interview job candidates can tell you that.
With Miers, Dubya has worked with her for a decade. He doesn't have figure out what she believes about the constitution (and IMO abortion), he knows. So Miers is not likely, I think, to be a Souter or Kennedy.
I restated what you, yourself had stated; repeatedly.
You have done nothing but lie about what I said and attack me.
I'm not even a Miers "supporter"; I'm waiting to see what comes out about her, before I decide.
You might want to go to DU, where your kind of names calling and attacks on people who never said what you imagine they did, is the norm.