[LibLieSlayer]

Now kitty, I think that if you objectively go back and look at the President's judgment in times that NO other President has been placed in, while you may not like his choice for SCJ, he has proven his judgment time and again.

If you have any hope of changing minds on this subject, accusing President Bush of poor judgment in general will win you few converts. I think this type of backhanded attack is what is causing so many of us that want the hearings to take place, to enter into arguments here that only aid and abet the enemy (dims).

I guess my point is that your points stand on their own quite well without these low-ball tactics.

LLS

[kabar]

I think that if you objectively go back and look at the President's judgment in times that NO other President has been placed in, while you may not like his choice for SCJ, he has proven his judgment time and again.,

Campaign Finance Reform (McCain-Feingold) and prescription drugs under Medicare. Add Miers. No one is infaliable.

[ontos-on]

His judgment is called into question when he presumes that his intuition will be able to guide him when it is applied to an area, appellate court judges, in which he is not himself experienced or well-versed.

To the objection that he has made good appellate appointments to this point, I would respond that in all his prior appointments the vetting process was performed by people other than himself and the President only was required to use his judgment and intuition among a pool of superbly qualified people.

To the objection that Miers was part of the people assistin in the vetting process and so must be qulified herself, that does not follow and her participation was over a very short period of time. A candidate such as Miers would not have made it to the final pool, to say the least, and the President has erred in allowing his personal feelings to cloud his judgment.

[carenot]

he has proven his judgment time and again.

Yes, he has. :(