In a footnote on page 166, Judge Bork writes that ``the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.''
Well, if that's an accurate summary of the note, its a rare example of slipshod reasoning by Bork.
So, guess I can't get angry with you about misrepresenting Bork. Yet. I'll check my copy for context later tonight.
But this thread isn't really about Bork. Or Ken Starr. It's about Meirs and the fact that she isn't anywhere near the most qualified candidate for this opening and why the President nominated her.
It's called "comparative reasoning".
As it stands, I probably know just about as much as you do with regards to Ms. Miers (very little), and from the outset of the announcement I have placed myself in the neutral position until I can make a better assessment of her qualifications at a later date when she is grilled at the committee hearings.
I'm hoping people who've been critical of her from the outset would just give her a chance to prove her worth.
If I have to be called a "Bushbot", so be it, doesn't bother me. Not all Bushbots are exactly thrilled to death about this nomination.