10/9/2005

5 Responses to “Thank You, You Motherthanker”

1. Near as I can tell Miers is Gonzales in a skirt, just with no annoying record.

   I guess if Roe is the be-all and end-all, she’s better, but there are so many other issues (federalism, guns, war powers, speech, etc) that I want more than just some reliable vote. I want a reliable voice, too, and on a wide range of issues.

   A better argument is that we won’t get better out of Bush, as he’s really a CINO.

   Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 10/9/2005 @ 6:41 pm

   
   

2. “Thanked”, “fucked”… whatever.

   Tom Trigger (92e86d) — 10/9/2005 @ 8:59 pm

   
   

3. You get it.

   Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/9/2005 @ 9:08 pm

   
   

4. Funny post Patterico. 8^D

   I’m extremely disappointed in the Miers nomination. She may very well be a strong conservative – the record on that seems considerably mixed. It seems to me to be equally likely she could be another Souter, someone that doesn’t understand what “shall make no law” means.

   Even if she is a strong conservative though its still a missed opportunity. She’s too old IMO, and she is not a leading conservative thinker, someone that can help persuade the court and the country with solid arguments.

   Honestly, I don’t know why I voted for Bush 4 times now (twice for Gov, twice for pres) if this is what I was going to get. Nothing is more important than the SCOTUS and I didn’t get what I bargained for.

   If electing a majority in the house and senate and a president for 8 years doesn’t get us solid, young, conservative SCOTUS appointees what’s the point? We’d all be just as well off letting the Dems win and spending our time painting our houses and going to little league games.

   Dwilkers (a1687a) — 10/10/2005 @ 5:24 am

   
   

5. Dwilkers, have been coming to your conclusion myself of late. We’ll see what we’ve got after the Senate approves the nomination. If, as many of us fear, she becomes another Souter, then that does not bode well for:

   a. Anyone else named Bush who would like to receive our support for president in the future;
   b. Conservative turnout for the 2006 and 2008 elections;
   c. The Supreme Court; and ultimately
   d. The country.

   Personally, I’ll be elated if she turns out to be a strict constructionist with some semblance of a spine.

   On the other hand, Beldar has this and this to say which does offer me some hope that we will have a fresh viewpoint from someone with a little common sense for a change. She might even understand the meaning of “shall make no law” that so many of the “legal geniuses” and “constitutional scholars” have so far missed.

   Sammler has this to offer on, among other things, the age question. Makes some amount of sense.

   As for Bush being a CINO, unfortunately there’s at least some amount of evidence to support that contention. With a republican congress that is virtually indistinguishable from those they replaced, particularly with regard to pork, spending, and of late, it seems ethics, I suppose we may very likely have to employ the painting our houses and going to little league games option as you suggest.

   Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 10/10/2005 @ 8:17 am