And every profession has characteristic weaknesses. It is simply a fact that journalists and law professors value novelty and intellectual amusement more than most voters. Does that make them “dummies” when they oppose the choice of Miers? I wouldn’t say that — but I would say that, from a political point of view, they are making an obvious and understandable error.

I want boring judges who will write boring opinions — and I think most sensible citizens agree with me on that. I won’t say that journalists and law professors who disagree with that are “dummies”, but I do think they are putting their own narrow interests ahead of what is best for the country.

I sure as heck wish there were.

(just kidding, obviously)

Good post, and spot on the args of the moment. But you would indeed make a better Justice than say, RBG. As my lengthy comment on a prev post notes: there are intangibles such as stability and commitment. I wouldn’t trade those for all the law review articles in the world. Moot pt tho: I like you where you are.

On a related note, is there a site or a post that summarizes, as well as possible, what is known so far about HM’s judicial philosophy? I hear a lot of pseudo-args for and against her, but would prefer more substance, whichever way it leads.

And the Senate simply will not confirm someone with a DEMONSTRATED commitment to judicial conservatism. So what is George Bush to do? Send a good man (or woman) up there to be personally destroyed?