Replies

Since Bush already fooled me once I am not about to be fooled twice.

These "safe" picks are always a recipe for disaster. I find it interesting that Hamilton, over 200 years ago warned of the "safe pick of compromise". Maybe Bush should read this:

"The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation. He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have FEWER personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection. A single well-directed man, by a single understanding, cannot be distracted and warped by that diversity of views, feelings, and interests, which frequently distract and warp the resolutions of a collective body.

...I proceed to lay it down as a rule, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment.

in every exercise of the power of appointing to offices, by an assembly of men, we must expect to see a full display of all the private and party likings and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who compose the assembly. The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight." --Hamilton, from parts of the Federalist Papers

Hamilton is politely saying FU to compromise. Bush, with the approval of Democrats (The so called "list") picked Miers who was on the "list of surrendering to compromise".

Now you can say Miers is Bush's #1 all along. Quit frankly I find this absurd due to the fact that Bush had to go on bended knee in front of Democrats to get approval to even choose Miers. Plus there were candidates a lot stronger and more established. This attempt to paint Miers as #1 is a joke in and of itself.

EZ, advice and consent comes after you pick. You play hardball with those in your own party to over ride anything Democrats throw at you.

ez, is Bush such a sorry leader that he can't even get his own Party members to go to war with him? Democrats are not in charge last time I looked.

So then you agree with Chucky Schumer that we need to know this nominee's judicial philosophy before we can vote to affirm her?

Before you buy a car, you do kick the tires, open the hood, try out all the option before you buy it, don't you? Well, that's the same thing with knowing the philosophy of the judges you put up there on the Supreme Court or any court. They can be there for 20 or 30 years, just look at the damage the Warren Court has done to us and we are still fighting the cancer that thing has caused down to this very day. I have to agree with Chucky Schumer on this one (yuck) but we do have different standards in what we are looking for, but the thing is, we need to subject her to the process much like any job interview and more.

Someone said a while back, maybe President Bush wants to get Souter a date. B-) He's an old goat, she's an old maid, well, maybe we will see sparks fly. B-D Occam's Razor anyone? B-)

Seriously, I think the President shot himself in the foot while driving over a land mine on this one, the best solution is for her to withdraw, which is a possibility but I'm not holding my breath.