Replies

You keep overlooking the fact that there is no reason YOU should have this knowledge you want. There is NO ONE who has it except the President. And if you trusted him enough to give him the highest office in the land why would you not trust him on this? It is HE that has worked with Miers for near 20 years. It is HE who has relied upon her assistance in placing the judges you approve of on the bench. It is HE who knows how she thinks and whether she is close to his philosophy.

It is through the Hearings that you will get information. But you are not going to get anything from her which could bear upon cases to be decided in the future. That is not the way it works.

And your speculations as to Bush's motives are nothing but that. I don't believe them to be correct in any instance. He chose a person that he has known long enough to know how she thinks about the constitution and the law. That should be enough to trust the man in this whom we elected to be Commander in Chief. If he can be trusted with using the Nuclear football he can be trusted to appoint Justices.

You keep overlooking the fact that there is no reason YOU should have this knowledge you want.

Of course there is. This isn't a dictatorship, and I have two Senators to make my will known through. If you want to be a mushroom, feel free, but we can't expect our elected representatives to do our will without even being given the information to make a choice.

And if you trusted him enough to give him the highest office in the land why would you not trust him on this?

Because he said he would do one thing, and has done another. In the 2000 election, my sole reason for casting my vote for Bush was his repeated promise that he would seek and appoint judges in the model of Scalia. Miers already fails that test, in that she has no history of making any sort of Constitutional argument. Our own Congressman BillyBob is miles more qualified on that score alone.

And your speculations as to Bush's motives are nothing but that. I don't believe them to be correct in any instance.

The President has stated that he only considered women, which is a damnfool thing to do when trying to choose a lifetime appointment for one of the most influential jobs in our nation. It means he is putting PC politics above truly seeking the best person, male or female. Suppose next time the politically correct move is to appoint only someone who is blind, or bilingual, or transgendered? Will that become more important than judicial philosophy and ability?

I won't buy a pig in a poke, no matter how much lipstick is applied. In other words, I'm not the sort to just shut up and take it.