[Wolfstar]

We won. You lost.

You haven't won anything. As for who and what has been lost, you and your reactionary cohorts aren't bright enough to get the half of it.

Listen to the talking heads this morning. You won't hear what I hear, I know. But try to pay attention to the precedent that's been set here. You people have set the Constitution and the founder's vision on its head.

Now only a very narrow range of people will ever be considered qualified for the court. They must have degrees from Harvard, Yale or one of the other elite law schools. They must have academic and/or work experience in one specific area of the law. Never again can a "common" man or woman be considered for the court. What I mean by that is someone who has come up through the world most of us live in.

You and your ilk disgust me more than I can possibly say.

[rcocean]

"Reactionary"?!

What's with the commie lingo.

Are you a conservative or a progressive, comrade?

[ConservativeDude]

"You and your ilk disgust me more than I can possibly say."

snicker, chortle

[Lazamataz]

You haven't won anything. As for who and what has been lost, you and your reactionary cohorts aren't bright enough to get the half of it.

We reminded Bush who brung 'im to the dance, we did.

Listen to the talking heads this morning. You won't hear what I hear, I know. But try to pay attention to the precedent that's been set here. You people have set the Constitution and the founder's vision on its head.

Nonsense. Unless now it is unConstitutional to express your opinion to the President.

Now only a very narrow range of people will ever be considered qualified for the court. They must have degrees from Harvard, Yale or one of the other elite law schools. They must have academic and/or work experience in one specific area of the law. Never again can a "common" man or woman be considered for the court. What I mean by that is someone who has come up through the world most of us live in.

Absurd. Just get us a conservative who doesn't write like an idiot.

You and your ilk disgust me more than I can possibly say.

I'm an ilk now? COOL!

[Jokelahoma]

You people have set the Constitution and the founder's vision on its head

Would that be the same constitution that starts with "We the people of these United States....?

[oceanview]

how "common" do you want a person representing 11% of one entire branch of government to be?

[Pessimist]

"You people have set the Constitution and the founder's vision on its head."

I guess I missed the part that said we weren't allowed to criticize.

[processing please hold]

Now only a very narrow range of people will ever be considered qualified for the court. They must have degrees from Harvard, Yale or one of the other elite law schools. They must have academic and/or work experience in one specific area of the law. Never again can a "common" man or woman be considered for the court. What I mean by that is someone who has come up through the world most of us live in.

I agree. I don't think they see what they have done, some of them will never see it.

What a tragic thing for this country.

[LibertarianInExile]

"Now only a very narrow range of people will ever be considered qualified for the court. They must have degrees from Harvard, Yale or one of the other elite law schools. They must have academic and/or work experience in one specific area of the law. Never again can a "common" man or woman be considered for the court. What I mean by that is someone who has come up through the world most of us live in."

You're good at sticking to talking points but you suck at losing. For instance, did you know that most here seem to support CONSERVATIVES, without regard to their Ivy League credentials? It's horses' asses like you who stuck with the insulting tone and message that made the dissenters' ranks grow. If you think Miers' withdrawal set some Ivy League precedent, you are simply kidding yourself. It set a precedent that the GOP must appoint known conservatives OR at least hellaqualified stealth nominees with enough paper trail to look good enough to the base. And that's good precedent, not bad.

[thoughtomator]

Now only a very narrow range of people will ever be considered qualified for the court. They must have degrees from Harvard, Yale or one of the other elite law schools. They must have academic and/or work experience in one specific area of the law. Never again can a "common" man or woman be considered for the court. What I mean by that is someone who has come up through the world most of us live in.

The fight for this nominee is over. Stop trying to convince yourself that what happened is what you wanted to have happened.

What happened here is that "constructionist" and "verifiable" have been added as qualifications for nominees coming from a GOP President (if he wants to hold onto the GOP base). None of those other things were ever at issue, except in the strawman arguments of supporters. Do you really think we were more concerned about her SMU education than her demonstrable prediliction for supporting racist and sexist policy?

[DK Zimmerman]

Well, while I sorta agree with the first part of what you say, I disagree vehemently with "set the Constitution and the founder's vision on its head."

Look, Bush and the GOP lost in the big picture of things because this "spat" occurred at all. But who nominated this person in the first place? I would suggest, that act initiated the process. Only time will tell how much long term effect it actually has, but a good incator may be seen in Bush's next try.

This nomination had all the down sides of Roberts (no track record) with the addition of extremely dubious credentials and the potential charge of cronyism. It simply wasn't smart. IMO.

On the other hand, the issue of "didn't even allow an up or down vote" - admittedly not your claim in the comment cited - and the quote above - are way off the mark. Ever heard of free speech and democratic (in the good sense) process? These were exercised and appropriately. Admittedly, the debate grew hot, but haven't you been watching what Coulter et al do/say about Democrats on a regular basis?

She could have had her up and down vote, nothing ANYONE not elected to the Senate can do or has done to avoid that...except her "withdrawl." (Speech impediments are a terrible thing.)