[Glenn]

The democrats CANNOT allow a capable, conservtive, pro-life, evangelical Christian attorney, who worships Bush, end up on the Supreme Court.

Says you.

[AmericaUnited]

What a great post! It's nice to see someone using more than two brain cells and giving in to infantile temper tantrum instincts when dealing with this nomination.

[BigSkyFreeper]

The democrats CANNOT allow a capable, conservtive, pro-life, evangelical Christian attorney, who worships Bush, end up on the Supreme Court.

So you have no problem with gay marriage becoming the law of the land, Christ taken out of Christmas and God removed from the pledge?

[AmericaUnited]

This has to be one of the savviest political poker maneuvers I have seen. Misunderestimated by the democrats again ? This time he did it so well, it went over the heads of many conservatives.

It is strategically brilliant. As far as the 'angry, raging conservative street (think arab street :)), they will be quite happy after seeing the first several votes. Of course, some are just miserable malcontented whiners who live to complain. For them, no person living would do.

[HEY4QDEMS]

You amuse me...........now go away.

[G.Mason]

" ... The vituperative rhetoric flows like unctuous bile from the fingertips, bootlickers, bushbots, morons, kool-aid drinkers, as the poster champions his elite point of view by defaming those who disagree. Rather than discussing on a reasoned basis, it has become the land of ad hominem and non sequiturs."

I must say I liked those two descriptive sentences.

Finally something has become so all encompassing as to lay Microsoft, Wal-Mart, and Schiavo to waste.

[ARCADIA]

"can anyone name one judicial nomination of Bush's that has been bad ?"

Miers, and he is being called on the floor for it.

"I do not think anyone believes Meirs is the best qualified, strictly going by having a paper trail. I doubt Bush really believes she is the best qualified in that aspect."

So, you think Bush lied when he told us she was the best qualified?

"My gut feeling on Meirs is she could possibly end up being to the right of Scalia and Thomas, paper trail or no paper trail, at worst, she will march lockstep with Roberts."

Are you reading tea leaves or consulting a crystal ball?

[ahayes]

The vituperative rhetoric flows like unctuous bile from the fingertips, bootlickers, bushbots, morons, kool-aid drinkers, as the poster champions his elite point of view by defaming those who disagree.

Tip: Put down the thesaurus and pick up Strunk and White. That punctuation is atrocious. Unless you meant to say that fingertips, bootlickers, bushbots, etc. were flowing "unctuous bile." And I think that would be even worse. . .

[bvw]

It is the President's choice to make. The whining, although widespread, has been 99.95% just that: whining.

In the end ALL THINGS in this creation come down to one man (or woman's) take on it. Just one. Not some committee. Not some consensus. Not some advisory panel. Not some (*yuch-pitoowy*) poll.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Miers not Meirs

[Ragnorak]

Eating Their Own On The Right

Not knowing whether or not she qualifies as "our own" is the entire problem.

This time he did it so well, it went over the heads of many conservatives.

As far as altitude is concerned, we wanted a nominee who was right between the eyes. Over our heads? Whose being "emblematic of ideological elitism" now?

[7thson]

If the democrats manage to defeat her or block her, Bush can then say, "I listened to you, and you still blocked her, I see no further need to waste time consulting with you", and a documented ideological conservative is nominated, the constitutional option is invoked and the democrats get the blame. You've got to be kidding me! After four plus years of being called every name in the book, after walk outs in Texas and in the House, after their blockage of certain judicial picks and what they have said about them, Bush needs this to be the last straw!

[cynicom]

You are seeing exactly what Bush wanted you to see. Perhaps you need to change vantage points, it might offer a totally different perspective.

Bush and his people pulled the old sleight of hand trick on us and got caught, now he is petulant (it shows on TV) and has not the grace to admit it.

[Grut]

I believe it's the Left that's required to think in lockstep; are you sure you know who you are? How does the current Miers flap differ from the sprightly debates we have here on, say, drug legalization or school prayer or intelligent design?

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

[oblomov]

Ideological elitism

LOL, let's trust the President instead of standing up for our principles. Do you think that Miers would find Medicare part D or No Child Left Behind or McCain-Feingold unconstitutional? (i.e., the agenda of our "conservative" President... I'm sure that his support of these socialist boondoggles was just stratgery) I didn't see similar concerns on the right about Roberts, despite indications that he may not be ideologically "pure". The concern with Miers is well-founded.

[DCPatriot]

Learn how to spell her name for chrissakes!

[savedbygrace]

Your vanity post is voided by the logical fallacy of begging the question. That question is: Will Miers be a strict constructionist on the Court?

The correct answer is: Nobody knows.

As for CJ Roberts, his questioning during the first oral arguments he presided over were troubling. Now, he might have been playing devil's advocate to elicit reasoned responses in support of his position, but if you take his questioning at face value, he is favorable to sweeping federal government takeover of certain States Rights (although this particular issue is a painful one to give to Oregon, the right to kill terminally ill who want to die.) Taking over States Rights is hardly a strict constructionalist viewpoint. Time will tell, when the ruling on that case is released.

But for now, it's troubling.

[SuziQ]

The poison and venom need to stop, let the left eat their own, conservatives are supposed to be smarter than this.

AMEN!

[Tom Bombadil]

The vituperative rhetoric flows like unctuous bile from the fingertips, bootlickers, bushbots, morons, kool-aid drinkers...

Was this written by a thesaurus?

I support Harriet Meyers because W is nominating somebody he knows very well (unlike Mr. Souter and his nominating pres). W isn't going to compromise here.

This post is very, very, funny because the poster is what he describes.

[Always Right]

The vituperative rhetoric flows like unctuous bile from the fingertips, bootlickers, bushbots, morons, kool-aid drinkers,

I have yet to call one Harriet supporter a name. Meanwhile I have been told to go back to DU, called a liberal, a moonbat, and much more. I am not just gonna walk lockstep in what I think was not a wise pick. Bush could of handled both these choices better.