[TXBSAFH]

What about debating thesubstance of the article?

[sinkspur]

What about debating thesubstance of the article?

You mean the substance that maintains that, unless you've attended a top tier law school (as Ann has) you have no right to even be considered for the Supreme Court?

That "substance"?

Or the "substance" about "Bush's boozing"?

There is little substance to this article. It is Ann, yelling and screaming.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"What about debating thesubstance of the article?"

Why didn't Ann do that?

[nopardons]

What "substance"? This is nothing more and nothing less than a bitchy, elitist, foaming at the mouth rant hatchet job on the president.

The smarmy remake about "Bush boozing" when supposedly netter and brighter ( implied ) men were amassing genius conservative lawyers ( and how, pray tell, did they do that? )for a farm team, to be nominated for the SCOTUS, is pathetic and libelous.

Putting down Miers,because she went to SMU, when Ann has done less with her life, even though she graduate from Cornell and Michigan, is elitist and nonsensical, in the extreme.

There is no there there and there hasn't been any "substance" in at least that last 4 or 5 columns she's written. And being the GRAMMAR POLICE, for FR, when she hasn't posted here in a very long time ( Hi Ann/ aka Freedom Rocks, I hope you're reading this ! ) is ridiculous.