Can This Nomination Be Justified?: George Will writes, "It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks."
===========

Of course, George Will. What we need are talented people who can "make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Consitution." Just like some brilliant people found privacy in the "penumbra" of the constitution. Like the "appearance of a likeness" that Ezekiel saw.

It is an academic exercise afterall, and a game that lawyers play, hardly ever affecting the everyday life of Americans, you know. Ever learning but not coming to the knowledge of the truth. But what can you expect from a "conservative" writer who cannot see anything intelligent in the design of a penguin. He has to keep his own "credentials" in order so that he can keep appearing on Sunday morning television.

Democrats See Dream of '06 Victory Taking Form - New York Times: "Suddenly, Democrats see a possibility in 2006 they have long dreamed of: a sweeping midterm election framed around what they describe as the simple choice of change with the Democrats or more of an unpopular status quo with the Republican majority.

=========

Poor New York Times. They and their shills just can't get it. Just because conservatives are squabbling over the Miers nomination doesn't mean they will vote for Howard Dean's buddies.

Liberals cannot get it because they think with their feelings. Hence, someone makes you mad and you get revenge. You have a "hissy fit." They still think that is what happened in 1994, conveniently forgetting that the Contract with America was about principles that the people of this country still hold--it wasn't about having a anti-incumbant fit. Until liberals can come up with some values [impossible, giving the definition of liberal--one who is "free," ,meaning from any principle], then they will continue to misread one election after another.

I do not believe that Americans simply vote against--they vote their values.

The flap over Harriet Miers is about values, specifically about abortion. The conservatives who doubt her are troubled that they cannot be sure that she will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Liberals who voted against Roberts were troubled that he might vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Underneath the argument over Roe vs. Wade is an even deeper conflict over values. Liberals value no restrictions on any kind of sex and want to get rid of any inconvenience that might come from sleeping around, any disease, any reproach, any little brat that comes along because of it. Abortion is not murder; it is just like cleaning the wax out of your ears. Evangelicals value morals that they derive somehow from an higher order--though they could have a good debate on this, whether this order is revealed by nature or by revelation. But they would generally agree that morals are not up for individual choice. When Liberals speak of choice, they are only speaking in a sidelong fashion about abortion: the choice they are really speaking of is the choice to do sex anywhere, anytime to anybody or thing.

That real debate will return. It only went underground in the Sixties under a flood of pornographic musc, publications, entertainment, and birthcontol pills. But it hasn't gone away. Even more basic is this debate: "Does God care about what we do in our bodies?" People better find out for sure.

But one thing is sure. Conservatives may feel confident enought to have spats with each other, but that sure doesn't mean we will vote for the likes of Ted Kennedy or Howard Dean. But let them think so. That way they will keep losing elections.

Read This One

James Solis has some good thoughts on the nomination of Harriet Miers. Click here
After all, this justice does not need to do anything but vote what the constitution says or doesn't say, and everything will be all right. We don't need brilliance, just a reliable original intent vote.

USNews.com: Washington Whispers (10/17/05): "Is Al Gore coming back? If allies we talked to have their way, the former veep will be the next president. 'It's Gore Time,' says a political strategist and fundraiser who is opening a bid to get Gore into the race. "
===============
What wonderful news. I am tempted to send a donation [a small one]. What a wonderful idea, which if it become reality will secure Republican domination for many years.

Townhall.com :: Columns :: President Bush must veer right, embrace conflict by David Limbaugh: "Conversely, the surest way he can end his presidency with a whimper is to abandon conservative principles and veer to the mushy, lukewarm middle -- the perennial prescription of so-called centrists and 'well-meaning' liberals. To the extent he's suffered in the polls lately, it's largely because he has veered left in certain areas, especially domestic spending."
=================
One of the secret fears that I have had over the entire GWB presidency is that ultimately he would cave on the conservative domestic agenda. I still believe that the most deadly mistake that Reagan made was the choosing of GHB as vice president, and propelled him into the presidency with disastrous results for conservatism, giving us eight years of Bill Clinton.

The Bushes are elite New Englanders even if they live in Texas. The senior Bush infuriated Reaganites by simpering over a "kinder, gentler" America. I had hoped that Dubya would be tougher, and he is on the Iragi War. But if we surrender on abortion, gay marriage, and budget-busting deficits and the welfare state. If Bush stabs his base in the back as his father did, there will be no conservative agenda for another 100 years, if America lasts that long.

Yes, I am gloomy today, and the David Limbaugh letter is a warning to Bush and to his base. I have tried to be a good sport about this Miers nomination. The most damning thing about it is the message that is sent to some very qualified, honest, and original intent judges who have paid the price for their convictions that the President of the United States does not care to fight for them.

The message to federal judges is this: You have a better chance of getting to the Supreme Court if you are a wuss than if you stand for what you believe, no matter how brilliant you are.

Is this another betrayal by the New England elite, who take care of each other first, no matter what the cost to the country, that party names just mean the same as choosing up sides for the next polo match.

I hope that Dubya is not really one of them in spirit, but we will see.

DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2005�: "``The fair journalistic question is why they didn't call and get comments for their story from people who were in the room, such as Sandy Berger, and why they took until Friday afternoon to get that done,'' said Lanny Davis, a former White House lawyer, who tried to persuade ''60 Minutes'' producer Jeff Fager to allow him or another Clinton spokesman to appear on Sunday night's segment."
=====
Oh, there's an easy one. Even I know the answer.
Why take statements from paid liars?