10/3    Harriet Miers - what a disgrace when you have candidates such as
        Janice Rogers Brown or Owen.  Souter all over again.           -jblack
        \_ The Bush administration is mostly about cronyism.  --PeterM
        \_ Any other historical examples of a president nominating a judge
           based entirely on that judge's loyalty to the president?
        \_ I guess I'm a little behind on all this.  I thought we were
           supposed to hate Brown and Owen?  And isn't this someone Harry Reid
           wanted?  --confused
           \_ Define "we".  OP is probably a conservative.  And I agree with
              him. -emarkp
              \_ Now I'm *really* confused.  --*really* confused
                 \_ There were known judges who rule on the Constitution the
                    way conservatives think it should be done.  Bush wimped out
                    and didn't nominate them, favoring a woman who has no
                    judicial record.  This given the fact that Bush has
                    majorities in the Senate and House and conservatives have
                    won the last several election cycles.  If he can't nominate
                    a known conservative (say, like Scalia), then when can one
                    be nominated?  Especially given the fact that Ginsberg was
                    chief counsel on the ACLU when she was confirmed. -emarkp
                    \_ Maybe even BushCo worries about turning this country
                       into a polluted banana republic theocracy.
                       \_ Non-sequitur.  If Ginsburg can sit on the bench, Bush
                          should be able to nominate someone as conservative as
                          she is liberal. -emarkp
                          \_ Counter-non-sequitor. It amazes me that Clarence
                             Thomas sits on the Supreme Court.
                             \_ Thomas is Black.  Ginsburg is a woman.  What
                                does competence or philosophy have to do with
                                their presence on the Supreme Court?
                             \_ Glad to hear it.  Bush should have nominated
                                another justice like Thomas or Scalia.
                          \_ Republicans control basically every branch of
                             government, so why isn't Bush nominating a
                             frothing reactionary like Thomas or Scalia?
                             \_ Because he is doing very poorly in the polls
                                and does not want to pick another visible
                                fight. See, polls do matter, no matter how
                                some people want you to believe they do not.