it's a funny pickle. harriet miers is nominated by bush to the supreme court and the group that goes ape-banana-shit over it is the right wing. obviously, her lack of ANY judicial experience should raise two eyebrows straight to heaven. obviously, her statement that bush is a genius should cause ANOTHER tsunami to happen and this time roll right over the biblical lands. obviously, she is strong on rolling back abortion rights...or is she? obviously, she's big on constitutional interpretation...or is she? obviously, she has no track record on anything...or does she? james dobson claims that (from conversations he's not allowed to discuss) she's anti-abortion. other pundits claim they've been told that "on background" she falls right in line with the Right. democrats look up from the foxholes they've chosen to inhabit for the last five years and can't seem to find the weapons they brought into battle with them. instead of talking about her lack of judicial experience, why aren't they rattling sabres over bush's claim that her faith is enough? why aren't they agreeing with the Right who opposes her and then informing the public that the reason george will is against her is because she hasn't proven herself conservative enough? that is the real reason the Right is against her. it's not the lack of good lawyering or the lack of ever having been a judge. it's that her paper trail isn't cohesive. the conservatives don't consider john roberts a true conservative. he's not religious enough. now they have a fundamentalist, but she's not legal enough? come on. bull....shit. the Right realizes it bought a pig in a poke with roberts. he may turn out to be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who will work to overturn every "liberal" ruling from the past 300 years or so, but they can't bank the farm on it. they feel that they are OWED. owed by this administration that they helped elect. owed by bush who claims visions from god (no one else seems to be that close to the Almighty other than him in the administration, though. noticed?). now they want a justice who will tell the congress in nomination hearings that god will kill all of their firstborns if he/she is not voted onto the bench.
and the dems sit by and wonder what the next step in acting more civilized is. note to dems: civilized is a word 86'd by webster's because it's "archaic, nondemonstrable and naive to the max". get on board the reality bus. miers shouldn't be on the court, because she's a wolf in sheep's clothing. whose wolf is what everyone is debating. but it's clear to me that she is bush's wolf. he's nominated her on the "trust me" ticket. in other words, he will not give out any concrete specs for her viability. why? that is the question. it may be that she has none other than her unswerving loyalty to bush. and the possibility that she helped cover up his national guard days.
necessity is the mother of invention, but
graft is the bastard of hubris.