I haven't had much to say about the Miers nomination, but a fellow blogger asked me last night at dinner what I thought about it. A lot of other people are discussing this, but all I'll say is that I think that it's the most boneheaded thing that the president has done during his presidency.

Well, THERE'S a deep and considered argument.

Personally, I'm thrilled the President has nominated someone that's less of a judicial system insider, someone who is more in tune with the electorate in general, and someone who he believes shares his values (and I believe his evaluation until proven otherwise).

Our judicial system in general is broken in many places (like the one I live in), and the current hierarchy is not capable of solving the problem. Justice Roberts is one example of the solution, and I believe that both of them will force the Court to get a dose of common sense, and hopefully put an end to this crap of legislating from the bench.

I listened to some excerpts from Souter the other day, and was appalled to hear his logic and basis for decisions, which were based on international law, not on our Constitution. Personally, I'd support an amendment to allow for recall of Justices, just so we could rid the Court of idiots like him.

If Ms. Miers can help put the clamps on fools like Souter, then she's got my support.

One last thought: If this nomination is the most boneheaded thing our President has done in his tenure, then he's doing a pretty good job, eh? Just remember the bonehead he succeeded.

Personally I've never understood why the kind of people I thought would be thrilled by this nomination seem so upset about it. Near as I can figure the main objections add up to her not being a known quantity. This reminds me of the same way banks don't consider a blank slate (no credit history) to be the same as a perfect credit history.

As near as I can tell, that's basically what Myers is: a blank slate. I'm sure that Bush approves of her, or he wouldn't have nominated her, and based on his campaign promises of how he wanted to shape the court, I can only assume that Bush believes she'll help steer the court back ot original intent of the Constitution. I just hope he's a better judge of Myers than his father was of Souter...

Am I one of the people you thought would be "thrilled" by this nomination? If so, why?

I'm not a conservative, or a Christian. I've seen no basis on which to support it other than that I'm supposed to trust George Bush, and he's provided little reason to do that for me, other than on matters of national security. He's certainly demonstrated with his signing of McCain-Feingold that he's indifferent to the Constitution.

Frankly, I don't understand the hubbub about Miers. Obviously, she's weak for a candidate. But there have been many weak candidates appointed to the Supreme Court. Keeping Rumsfeld or Rove around aree far bigger mistakes IMHO than nominating Miers.

Second, I must defend Souter. He has turned out to be one of the better justices currently on the court (again IMHO). I don't know what to say about Dave G.'s remarks except to say that international law often applies to US law. After all, the signing of treaties is specifically allowed for in the Constitution, and that is how international law is made. Further, the US has long had a hand in creating said international law.

There is an interesting story in today's Washington Post. The story,
A Palpable Silence at the White House has this interesting quote:

In the view of many Republicans, fatigue may be one factor affecting the once smooth-running White House. Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. gets up each day at 4:20 a.m., arrives at his office a little over an hour later, gets home between 8:30 and 9 p.m. and often still takes calls after that; he has been in his pressure-cooker job since Bush was inaugurated, longer than any chief of staff in decades. "He looks totally burned out," a Republican strategist said.

Earth to Andy Card: Who do you think you are? Lieutenant Commander Data of the Starship Enterprise? At this point he's not just burned out -- he's a damned lunatic who should be fired.

Sleep and rest are not dispensible options for human beings. The Stakhanovite movement failed in the former Soviet Union. Similar idiocies have failed in the former Nazi Germany and other psychotic nation states. What gives people the idea that they will work here?

> I don't know what to say about Dave G.'s remarks except to say that international law often applies to US law. After all, the signing of treaties is specifically allowed for in the Constitution, and that is how international law is made.

"Often"? There's precisely ONE instance, namely treaties.

Souter has cited international law in other cases, where no treaties are involved.

I never mentioned you specifically. But many conservatives who kept insisting that we trust the persident in matters of national security and the "war on terror" suddenly seem not to be practicing what they preached in the case of Miers. Ann Coulter, to name one.

So OK, you've not been given any reason to support the nomination. I'll give you that... but on what basis do you oppose it? At least state that. So far you've given no reason why you do, unless the only reason you oppose it is lack of reason to support it. Maybe I differ from your reasoning, but I'm not one to oppose anything by default. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt until I see reason to do otherwise.

I'm not saying that's your only reasoning for opposing Miers (not going to let you accuse me of attacking a strawman here), but if you have any other reasons, PLEASE SAY SO. Just saying you think the president is boneheaded for nominating her, without saying why, tells us nothing.

The fact that I've been provided with no discernable reason to support her is sufficient reason to oppose her. I want a Supreme Court justice who is familiar with the Contitution, and has demonstrated such familiarity, and an interest in interpreting it as written, not as they would wish it to be. I've seen zero evidence that this is the case for her, and some evidence that it is in fact not. Assurances that she will oppose Roe mean nothing to me, if she's doing it for the wrong reasons (i.e., simply because she opposes abortion). I see no reason that she was nominated except that the president knows her closely. As I said, he's given us ample reason not to trust his judgement when it comes to matters concerning the Constitution, McCain-Feingold being the most notable example.

And many other people, as I said, have provided reasons that the decision was boneheaded, so I'm not sure why I should enumerate them. I suppose I could provide links, but I haven't time.

Consider the following: The President knows that Myers is controversial. He knows what the objections are going to be. I am sure he likes her as a person and respects her ideas. I am sure he would like her nomination to succeed. If I were the top dog I would throw her in the ring. If she makes it great! If not, then I have a second nomination in the wings lined up that is similar in beliefs but far stronger on the obvious points the loyal opposition rants about. This way the opposition spends all of its energy on the strawman (or woman) and as a bonus, they pin themselves to specific qualifications. The second nomination walks right in the door. Win win situation for the president. Question is,,, who does he have lined up? My be is a religious conservative with lots of court experience.

Do you think there would be as much opposition to Miers had the nomination not come immediately after "Katrina" shattered Bush's assumption of competence?

I'm reminded of when I see a story in the paper or on the news on a subject I am very knowledgable about, and see them totally botch it. There is a sudden realization that all the other stories I have read are likely to be just as wrong, so trust goes out the window.

I don't understand the stink about Rumsfeld. Here is a DOD Secretary that has let his field officers fight their war their way with his support. To that end, the US Armed Forces have managed to invade two nations and concur them, supply aid to the largest humanitarian disaster this century, and provide assistance in disasters at home. This in just the last few years.

As for Miers, she is unimpressive, especially when put up against possible other candidates. If you don't care about other possibilites or choose to just believe in the President, then I guess their is nothing to worry about. However, if you wonder, why not someone else? Then you start wondering if Bush is just giving out appointments to favored friends. He did this with FEMA, and it wasn't pretty.

"After all, the signing of treaties is specifically allowed for in the Constitution, and that is how international law is made." That's called a red herring Karl.

The problem with siting international law has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with treaties. It has to do with judges using the internal laws of other lands to justify their own personal opinions rather than following the laws of this land. It's an abomination.

Ann Coulter has nailed the reason for being disatisfied with Harriet Miers...

"...we're looking for lawyers with giant brains to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions..."

Every word in this quote counts. Court opinions are not public opinions. They are not supposed to be common sense. They are suppose to be law. The purpose of the supreme court is to be apolitical and strictly defend the constitution.

The legal system of this country is a masterpiece of awesome genius which we piss on in our everyday ignorance. We've lost our way. The waters have been so muddied, that those that thrive in those muddy waters have taken over and our constitution has been lost. Our forefathers came to this country to flee from tyranny. They would be appalled at the tyranny we've allowed to fester today.

Thank God for blogs that shine a light so often on the misdeeds of public servants, even good men that make bad choices. Our president does not have the right to put an unqualified candidate on the supreme court because he too is suppose to protect and defend the constitution.