Replies

because there were better and choices that Bush could have made that were known quantities.

Nobody's denying that.

Do you really think she was the best pick GW could have made?

Yes, I do -- because he has absolutely NO GUARANTEE that the gutless wonders we call senators will back him up, period.

Look what they did to him in May with that Gang crap; you see, they all look at him as a lame duck now and are all making their moves, while we, the people who elected him AND them, sit here in 2005, after having felt like we were robbed of 4 years because of the closeness of 2000, expecting these last years to be "our" four years -- the ones we've worked so hard at, the ones where WE were going to get what we've been waiting for -- only to discover that our own senators suck and are basically going for themselves. I am furious about it, but I know it's the truth. Saying "we could have" or "we should have" just doesn't get it; it's just NOT doable.

Were there not more qualified picks with top-notch credentials?

I think there were, but I certainly don't know as much as Bush knows.

All will have to wait to see if GWB's choice benefits the court in the way conservatives have hoped.

While you're waiting, why not look at the big picture and see that a lot of this debacle belongs right at the feet of the Gang of 14. They almost guaranteed that the nominee would have to be mediocre.

And while you're pondering that, ask yourself this: you have to consider the fact that the Democrats LOVE having O'Conner on that court; and if Bush had sent up somebody controversial, they would have held it up until the end of time because the Dems got her to say she's stay until a replacement was seated.

Who would you ratheer have ruling on the next partial birth abortion case, O'Conner or Miers?

Thanks for the well thought-out post. A couple points in response.

Who would you rather have ruling on the next partial birth abortion case, O'Conner or Miers?

Yes but we could have had O'Conner vs. almost any conservative candidate and have answered the question the same way. Using O'Conner as a measuring stick, Miers looks better from what we know. But what about the Thomas/Scalia measuring stick? I think that's what was hoped for, and how she measures up to them will not be apparent for quite some time I'm afraid. Are you saying that Bush made the decision to go with a mediocre candidate rather than taking the risk of not being backed up by the Senate? If that's the case, I think it's a bad choice by Bush - I'm not as convinced as you are that it wouldn't be doable.

why not look at the big picture and see that a lot of this debacle belongs right at the feet of the Gang of 14. They almost guaranteed that the nominee would have to be mediocre.

Mediocre, in the mold of Thomas and Scalia.

And I agree, the Senate is a big part of the cause for having to go "stealth." I object to going stealth when it comes to constitutional principle, and neither the GOP or GWB is bitching about the anit-constitutional 60 vote hurdle erected by DEM liberals.

Heck, why not bring Myers (9th Circuit) and Boyle up for vote? They've been out of committee for months.