that every candiate deserves an up or down vote?.......The republican translation of that is: candiates only deserve an up or down vote when 55 Republicans are in the Senate & the candiate has extreme far right views.....

Expect the next nomination to be some far-right crackpot like Michael Luttig, etc....

you have to be concerned who Bush will pick instead of Meirs.
If the best Bush could come up with the first time was Meirs, then who the fuck do we get next?

I have no objection to a conservative president appointing a conservative judge. Thats how the game is played. But please, make sure the choice is a person of character, integrity, and the competence to be a Supreme Court Justice.
My template would be to look for someone who is the complete opposite of Clarence Thomas, a Bush I appointee with no character, no integrity, and the competence of a radish.

It's a long shot, but I could see him nominating a centrist liberal now, somebody who would get all the democratic votes and enough Republican votes to pass.  

Why would he do this?  Because Bush despises traitors.  At this point, he has got to be enraged at what critics on the right have done.  He's a lame duck.   His approval ratings are in the dirt.  He doesn't need these people anymore, and he's not really opposed to legalzed abortion anyway, he cares nothing for constitutional arguments.  

I could see him in a fit of pique nominating a candidate that insults his conservative rebels, but one that democrats could vote for en masse.  Rumor has it that he has made insulting appointments in tantrums before.  

The far right may fillibuster, but let's face it, if they fillibuster and lock up the senate after what they did with the "nuclear option" they could
all just about kiss their re-elections goodbye.  I doubt, however, Bush would think this far ahead on it.  

Yes, his handlers may make the next pick for him, but this may be the point where the handlers lose control of him.  I mean, with approval ratings in the 30s, they haven't been doing a good job in his estimate, have they?  He might be unstable enough to do this.    

This will be interesting.      

And the losers are ...

... the American people.

Being a judge, even a SUPREME court judge is not rocket science.  It is easy to get drones who can help with the fine points of constitutional law.  Since no document is ever going to be correct and complete, there will always be new problems and situations and cracks where precedent does not apply.  We live in a society with people and we face problems that humans make for themselves and we have to deal with them.

I know nothing special about Meirs.   However, I was very impressed by her ability to make a legal career in Tx.  Given the time she was hired, she was almost certainly "filling a quota" as a women and was supposed to be there to "sit by the door".  The fact that she could rise in that environment, make a partnership, go into management, and bring in business attests she understands the "law" probably better than most of the people on the court who have never done anything practical in their life.

Now, if Mr Bush relents, the next nominee will be a red meat conservative and the stage will be set for the battle royal that the extreme right and left in this country have been spoiling for.  Everybody in Washington will have fun:  the fundraisers, the true believers, the true unbelievers, the press, the politicians with an eye to their careers.  All of us will get a chance to call each other names.  An idealogue will rise or fall and everybody's blood pressure will go up.  

Unfortunately, we could use a full court filled with wise people.  People who argue from "great ideas" or "consistent principles" are not wise -- they just are too lazy to apply  hard thought and make hard choices.

yea...

Harry

   


-- Modified on 10/27/2005 11:59:58 AM