then why would the catholic church ever change its doctrine? didn't that happen in the sixties or whatever? i'm not big on catholic history. so maybe i'm wrong.

also, again, this is the entire reason laws shouldn't be based on purely religious beliefs. not everyone's beliefs are the same!



[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 3:16 PM. Reason : aef]

10/4/2005 3:15:13 PM

Wolfpack2k is about to pwn you with semantics.

10/4/2005 3:16:17 PM

No, the Church has never changed doctrine. The Church adds to doctrine, and defines certain doctrines as formal dogmas, but no doctrine that has ever been pronounced by the Church has ever changed.

The Church can change practices however. Since you mentioned the sixties you're probably thinking of the Second Vatican Council, which made a lot of changes in how the Church does things - allowed the Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular for example, encouraged the priests to face the people instead of ad orientem, etc. But no doctrines were changed.

Quote :

"Wolfpack2k is about to pwn you with semantics"

Half right.

What you call "semantics" I see as a very important distinction. There is a world of difference between doctrine (teaching) and practice. Mrs. Smith for example. Her doctrine (that 2+2=4) is true, her practice (of speeding 50 miles above the limit) is not.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 3:19 PM. Reason : add]

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 3:21 PM. Reason : add]

10/4/2005 3:18:09 PM

Wolfpack2K:

Referring to peoples' doctrine as "incorrect" gets them angry and unwilling to give even the littlest bit on this issue. People view this whole thing as an attack on their religion - and when something so basic to someone is attacked they stiffen up and fight back.

basically stfu

10/4/2005 3:24:22 PM

Quote :

"No, the Catholic Church has never had a doctrinal error in her entire history. She may have had policies or disciplines or practices that were wrong - but doctrinal errors? No. "

Quote :

"No, the Church has never changed doctrine. The Church adds to doctrine, and defines certain doctrines as formal dogmas, but no doctrine that has ever been pronounced by the Church has ever changed. "

LOL

This is priceless stuff people.

10/4/2005 3:25:22 PM

i can't wait till this guy runs for office

10/4/2005 3:46:09 PM

ha. for some reason i had assumed w2k was a girl all this time.

10/4/2005 3:54:36 PM

It is not wrong to refer to something as incorrect if it is objectively incorrect. I am not interested in whether Mrs. Green is offended or not when I refer to her statement that "2+2 does not equal 4" as incorrect. As long as I am not calling her names, or being disrespectful of her, it is perfectly fine to correct an objective error.

^^^ How so? Would you like to get into a doctrinal debate with me again? I thought we had already been through all of it once, but I wouldn't mind owning you some more on it.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 4:46 PM. Reason : add]

10/4/2005 4:45:56 PM

i'm glad God doesn't work like math
it would take all the fun out of Faith

10/4/2005 4:52:13 PM

the whole example just went right over your head didn't it?

10/4/2005 4:54:18 PM

yeah, thats it

it went over my head

10/4/2005 5:01:07 PM

you're free to believe that someone's religion is incorrect. The problem arises when you use your own religion in public policy decisions and use it with the explanation that everyone else's religion is wrong.

10/4/2005 5:03:27 PM

Not "everyone else's" is wrong with respect to this matter. I suspect that the overwhelming majority of Christian denominations teach what the Scriptures teach - that marriage is between a man and a woman.

10/4/2005 5:09:56 PM

you just dodged.

i'm calling you on it. either man up and respond or stfu

10/4/2005 5:10:41 PM

Maybe there's another reason for nominating Harriet.

Quote :

"Analysis: Can Patrick Fitzgerald Indict Bush and Cheney? by DC Pol Sci Sun Oct 2nd, 2005 at 11:14:45 PDT If Patrick Fitzgerald is indeed either contemplating the indictment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney or contemplating naming them as unindicted co-conspirators in the plot to out Valerie Wilson as a CIA agent, we are entering uncharted legal waters. The one example history presents us, that of Watergate, differs in a very important respect: Leon Jaworski, the Watergate special prosecutor, had a House Judiciary Committee that was willing to take action and provide a remedy in the form of impeachment. Since the current House Judiciary Committee is obviously not so inclined, Fitzgerald is essentially faced with three options: 1) Indict Bush and Cheney and provoke a constitutional crisis on the question of whether a sitting President is indictable; 2) Name Bush and Cheney as unindicted co-conspirators and watch them get off scot free, to be tried only in the court of public opinion; or 3) Do nothing and let them get off without even public criticism. Can a sitting President be indicted? "

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/2/141445/581

10/4/2005 6:55:13 PM

10/4/2005 6:57:05 PM

i can't wait till this guy runs for office

10/4/2005 6:57:56 PM

Quote :

"However, gay people are entitled to the same rights as everyone else and should not be discriminated against."

This is so funny. It's like hearing the Chinese government proclaim that all citizens have a right to free speech.

And you know, it's not that they don't -- it's just that free speech is not absolute, you see, and well, we can't have people yelling fire in a crowded theatre -- or deriding the government online. Or organizing in a square ...

10/4/2005 9:09:06 PM

Pretty good article on why Miers should not have been nominated. I think it's particularly well explained what "qualifications" are required of someone claiming to become a Justice on the SCOTUS.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007354

10/4/2005 11:37:48 PM

^

Yea, yea, OK.

Quote :

"To be qualified, a Supreme Court justice must have more than credentials; she must have a well-considered "judicial philosophy," by which is meant an internalized view of the Constitution and the role of a justice that will guide her through the constitutional minefield that the Supreme Court must navigate. Nothing in Harriet Miers's professional background called upon her to develop considered views on the extent of congressional powers, the separation of powers, the role of judicial precedent, the importance of states in the federal system, or the need for judges to protect both the enumerated and unenumerated rights retained by the people."

Nothing in her professional role called on her to consider these things? Now that I find a stretch. She's the head counsel to the White House--her entire job is dealing with the interplay between the major branches of government. Plus, as has been noted, she has a background in vetting judicial nominees.

I mean, at the very least, being a position of advising the President to assert executive privilege must require you to have some considered views on the Constitutional role of the President, and that's to say nothing of the issues she's likely had to deal with vis a vis Guantanamo, countless bills, and so on.

The problem with Harriet Miers "qualifications," in my view, is that she hasn't been _a judge_. Now I'm to believe that, despite holding one of the highest legal positions in the American government, she knows nothing about the Constitution, and has had NO professional reason to consider it?

Bullshit.

10/4/2005 11:56:44 PM

The problem with her qualifications is that there is no paper trace of them. A lot of people have been involved into an interplay between the branches of power. That doesn't mean all of them have at least somewhat wholesome picture of how a government should operate according to the Constitution. Her job was "tactical". No matter how successful she was at it, it says literally nothing about things that are truly relevant to the process of selecting a nominee for the SC.

On another note, you seem to put too much into the President's right to appoint nominees. I gather you're of the opinion that the intent of the Constitution was to give the President the right to shape up the Court any which way s/he pleases. I don't believe that is the case at all. I view the Separation of Powers as being the absolutely dominant principle upon which the American government is built. Presidential nominations are no more than a little bit of practicality over the hard principles. The framers might be of the opinon that direct election of judges is impractical, and I can certainly see an argument in the defense of that proposition. A President along with the Senate are then called to task of selecting justices for no other reason than "who else?"

In light of that, I absolutely don't see the President as having anything close to a full carte-blanche when it comes to selecting justices. I think s/he should be under an obligation to select only qualified candidates, where the word qualifications should have any sort of an objective meaning.

10/5/2005 12:18:40 AM

Quote :

"I gather you're of the opinion that the intent of the Constitution was to give the President the right to shape up the Court any which way s/he pleases. I don't believe that is the case at all.... I absolutely don't see the President as having anything close to a full carte-blanche when it comes to selecting justices. "

you're absolutely right.

just one thing you might want to remember though (you liberals seem to always forget)

republicans control the presidency AND the senate. ergo, in a practical sense, the people gave bush the constitutional authority to put in pretty much whomever he pleases. (Because he leads the GOP and the people put the GOP in white house and senate)


sorrrrrry.....

10/5/2005 12:28:22 AM

This appointment is horrible for reasons already stated by people on both sides of the aisle.

But don't worry.

The Democrats will find someway to fail at making her lack of experience and lack of distance from the administration an issue.

10/5/2005 12:35:07 AM

I never questioned that, you stupid dork. I think Miers will be confirmed and I'm not saying a crime has been or is being committed. He can legally appoint his horse to the SCOTUS. The question is, whether those who would criticize such a (perfectly legal!) decision would be in the wrong or maybe they'd have a valid point.

10/5/2005 12:37:04 AM

Quote :

"I absolutely don't see the President as having anything close to a full carte-blanche when it comes to selecting justices."

oh but he does

10/5/2005 12:44:16 AM

Quote :

"you're absolutely right. just one thing you might want to remember though (you liberals seem to always forget) republicans control the presidency AND the senate. ergo, in a practical sense, the people gave bush the constitutional authority to put in pretty much whomever he pleases. (Because he leads the GOP and the people put the GOP in white house and senate) sorrrrrry..... "

-Exsoriatorster

1) The President isn't the head of the GOP, he's only its highest elected member.

2) There isn't even a mention of political parties in the Constitution (since they didn't exist at the time), so I don't see how your party controlling the Senate gives Bush any more "constitutional authority" to appoint the person he wants than usual.

3) Just because his party controls the Senate doesn't even give Bush more power to pick who he wants if they don't like who he picks (which might actually be the case here). They CAN vote independent of parties, you know. So even in a "practical" sense you're wrong.

4) That still excludes the possibility of a Democratic filibuster, and there's nothing unconstitutional about that. So, once again, even in a "practical" sense you're wrong.


IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL IN THAT POST THAT'S CORRECT?

10/5/2005 12:45:50 AM

You're ignoring the fact that a sitting president is the leader of his party. fine whatever - you're just arguing.

Quote :

"They CAN vote independent of parties, you know. So even in a "practical" sense you're wrong"

yes, theoretically they can vote indepenent of parties, but PRACTICALLY they will not so stfu because again, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

10/5/2005 12:47:59 AM

^ if your best counter argument is that i'm being contrary, then you probably need to admit that you don't know fuck-all from been-fucked.

10/5/2005 12:50:02 AM

Quote :

"You're ignoring the fact that a sitting president is the leader of his party. "

Quote :

"yes, theoretically they can vote indepenent of parties, but PRACTICALLY they will not"

10/5/2005 12:50:44 AM

Quote :

"oh but he does"

Certainly not according to the framers.

Quote :

"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure. - A. Hamilton"

[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 12:58 AM. Reason : .]

10/5/2005 12:55:22 AM

How is GW Bush the leader of the GOP as opposed to just being its highest elected member?

And there is no evidence here that the Senate will vote strictly along party lines. In fact, there is mounting evidence to the contrary.

BTW PPS

Quote :

"^ if your best counter argument is that i'm being contrary, then you probably need to admit that you don't know fuck-all from been-fucked."

[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 1:01 AM. Reason : nigh night niggars]

10/5/2005 12:55:48 AM

I imagine there will be plenty of republicans to vote against her since some of them would like to have a shot at the 08 primaries, actually get money put into their campaign purses and stuff like that.

Im not holding out much hope though cause I expect near unaminous support from the dems considering they couldnt have found a better way to demoralize the GOP base and its interest groups if they tried.

10/5/2005 1:03:41 AM

Because that's the way it is.

It isn't set in stone like that, and it's of course not a rule for all political parties, but as far as I know both the democratic and republican parties consider a sitting president of their party their leader.

From http://www.gop.org under the leadership heading:

Quote :

"George W. Bush 43rd President of the United States. Dick Cheney Vice President of the United States Ken Mehlman Chairman, Republican National Committee Jo Ann Davidson Co-Chairman, Republican National Committee"

10/5/2005 1:04:37 AM

thank god finally someone with a fucking clue

10/5/2005 1:18:03 AM

Quote :

"Her job was "tactical". No matter how successful she was at it, it says literally nothing about things that are truly relevant to the process of selecting a nominee for the SC."

I disagree that her job is tactical -- my understanding is that the chief counsel to the President is basically like a "Chief Legal Officer" for a corporation. Taking that analogy, it's an executive position that requires interpretation and strategic thinking, just like any other.

It'd be one thing if she were just "some lawyer" typing away for the administration, but in general heads of legal have to interpret the law in terms of the client's strategic goals. In a corporation, that would be the business or the market; in the White House, it'd be in the context of the interplay between major branches of government.

Quote :

"On another note, you seem to put too much into the President's right to appoint nominees. I gather you're of the opinion that the intent of the Constitution was to give the President the right to shape up the Court any which way s/he pleases."

No -- because the President's own choice is checked by the nature of the job. A judge has a lifetime appointment, and the structure of the court is decided by Congress -- and justices can, after all, be impeached.

Your position seems to be that "checks and balances" ends with the nomination process; whereas in reality, it is only the beginning. The status quo has been to let justices run their course as they see fit, but I suspect that has to do with a silent, mainstream political acquiescence which prevails over the screams of the far right-wing.

One presumes that there are limits to judicial malfeasance that the American public will tolerate; we have seen it before, for instance during the New Deal.

Quote :

"I think s/he should be under an obligation to select only qualified candidates, where the word qualifications should have any sort of an objective meaning."

Again, I do not think the Supreme Court is a court of aristocrats or intellectual elites. That was the model by which past governments conspired against their citizens -- when only people with very rare, esoteric qualifications are allowed to interpret the law in a state of isolation from the rest of society, they are effectively monarchs.

This debate boils down to an ages-old recruiting problem: do you seek to hire people with a prior paper qualifications, or do you seek to hire people who are smart, mature, and who can learn quickly?

These are not mutually exclusive traits in an individual, but usually one viewpoint overshadows the other in a hiring process.

The problem with selecting a Supreme Court justice is that unless you take a chance on someone who is -- by snobby, lawyerly standards, "underqualified" -- the court will be pretty homogeneous. There are only a certain number of people in the world who could possibly be considered, and that number is small -- and it's a small world, too.

I think Bush is trying -- more than anything -- to shape the internal _culture_ of the Supreme Court by injecting an outsider. That does require a risk in someone who does not have a long "paper trail"; but in light of the Roberts confirmation, and indeed the rest of the court, I think it's a measured risk.

10/5/2005 1:20:53 AM

because clarence thomas isn't an outsider??

10/5/2005 1:25:32 AM

Quote :

"I disagree that her job is tactical"

Being the chief counsel does not require that one spend time seriously thinking about the constitution and its role in our society, it requires only that they figure their way around it so that the executive can exercise as much power as it wishes.

Quote :

"Again, I do not think the Supreme Court is a court of aristocrats or intellectual elites. That was the model by which past governments conspired against their citizenss."

Appointing friends and relatives to high positions without qualifications is the model of even worse governments. And that is pretty much all she is right now. And as Hamilton made clear this exactly the type of thing that the senate should check in the nominating process.

Quote :

"do you seek to hire people who are smart, mature, and who can learn quickly?"

yeah, the highest court in the land where she will be making decisions that will have a tremendous impact on the nation for the next ten to thirty years is a great place to learn.

A company might take a risk on someone for some important positions but who the hell hires a chief executive without management experience?

[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 1:42 AM. Reason : ]

10/5/2005 1:41:38 AM

Quote :

"Being the chief counsel does not require that one spend time seriously thinking about the constitution and its role in our society, it requires only that they figure their way around it so that the executive can exercise as much power as it wishes."

Except that the executive branch also appoints judges and sponsors bills, and has to deal with the Congress -- we're talking about a broad-based agenda, here.

See above: the President leads his whole party, not just his administration.

Quote :

"Appointing friends and relatives to high positions without qualifications is the model of even worse governments. And that is pretty much all she is right now. And as Hamilton made clear this exactly the type of thing that the senate should check in the nominating process."

I think maybe you missed the entire point of Hamilton's logic.

The President is not appointing anyone. He is nominating her. This is not a semantic distinction -- the President nominated her, knowing full well that she would be scrutinized by the public and the Senate.

Therefore, it serves to reason that the nomination process pre-empts cronyism (as the author of that article argued). The only reasoning you could give for this being a case of "cronyism" or "favoritism" over, say, the President actually believing she's the right person for the job, and that he can convince us of it, is to believe ... well, it's to believe he's stupid.

And if you believe that, then fine -- that's your personal misgiving. But otherwise, let's not pretend that President Bush personally believes she is unqualified, and that he is going to "slip one past" everyone. That is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

Quote :

"yeah, the highest court in the land where she will be making decisions that will have a tremendous impact on the nation for the next ten to thirty years is a great place to learn."

It sure is. You'd have to be awfully naive to believe that there's anyone in the world not currently sitting on that bench who is a priori "qualified" for that job.

And just in case you forgot, we live in a nation where the minimum qualifications for being the commander-in-chief of the military and head of the executive branch are:

Quote :

"Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

OMF!!!1 We should only elect generals to the Presidency! We don't want the President to learn his job in office!

And, for the record: I don't personally think practicing law is rocket science.

10/5/2005 1:56:47 AM

Quote :

"Pretty good article on why Miers should not have been nominated. I think it's particularly well explained what "qualifications" are required of someone claiming to become a Justice on the SCOTUS. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007354"

Nice article. I found the quote from the Federalist Papers very interesting.

Quote :

"During the Clinton impeachment imbroglio, Alexander Hamilton's definition of "impeachable offense" from Federalist No. 65 was plastered from one end of the media to the other. With the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, get ready for another passage from Hamilton to get similar play--this one from Federalist No. 76: "To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure." "

10/5/2005 7:52:36 AM

this chick must be dizzy

because both sides are spinning her like CRAZY

10/5/2005 9:09:10 AM

Here is George Will's column on her:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400954.html

Quote :

"Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due. 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. The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons. He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists. In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to ensure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance that he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, "I agree." Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, "I do." It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends. The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination."

10/5/2005 9:46:37 AM

Quote :

"Bush also said he doesn't employ a "litmus test" on abortion when selecting judicial nominees. Pressed on whether he and Miers, who've known each other for more than 10 years, had ever discussed abortion, Bush replied, "Not to my recollection ..." "

i can picture gw trying to bring abortion into a conversation with a great deal of subtlety

"so uh...harriet...been pregnant lately?"

10/5/2005 10:13:11 AM

^ haha, yeah ... "so, uh, Harriet, how do you feel about coat hangers?"

In the years he has known her, I refuse to believe that they wouldn't have had a single discussion about abortion.

Oh, and Wolfpack2K is nuts.

10/5/2005 10:17:21 AM

Quote :

"It sure is. You'd have to be awfully naive to believe that there's anyone in the world not currently sitting on that bench who is a priori "qualified" for that job."

This is another argument that I find very had to swallow but I was waiting for you to bring it up in public. What you say in essence is that prior qualifications are needed only for medium-difficulty tasks. Once the task becomes of overwhelming complexity... oh, fuck it, just send anyone. They're all equally not qualified.

You seem to confuse qualifications with a guarantee of success. The two aren't the same. Of course, there are people who are qualified to do the job. A person with an _established record_ of having a coherent and wholesome picture of the Constitution is. Does it mean this person will surely be an excellent justice? Of course, not. But when your job becomes to help shape up the government to your understanding of how it should be, prior documented experience in at least thinking about these matters certainly helps.

In general, I think it's quite remarkable that for someone who advocates the idea of people's courts and doesn't like the current status quo, you count on magic way too much and plus put the whole process in the hands of the elites, which seems to be contrary to your goals. "We have very specific problems with the court: erosion of property rights, infringment on states' right etc. Let's just vaguely introduce some "fresh blood". That oughtta solve all our problems." Furthermore, by ridiculing the merit based process of selecting justices, you essentially completely remove the public from the process. How can it participate if any discussion of qualifications is automatically deemed irrelevant? According to you, we should just "trust" the President's instincts. If this is not the idea that the elites know better than I don't know what is.

[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 10:26 AM. Reason : /]

10/5/2005 10:24:01 AM

the point is, the public at large put the GOP in control of the senate and the presidency.

so you guys in the minority can whine and question and bitch and moan until you're blue in the face

but in the end - as leader of a party that controls the senate, president bush basically has carte blanche to appoint whomever he desires.

10/5/2005 10:34:05 AM

The outrage on the right is even stronger than on the left, you stupid dork. Reid and Schumer have already edorsed Miers. It's not the Democrats who are primarily complaining. Get the Republican dick out of your mouth and try and say something smart and reflective of the reality.

10/5/2005 10:38:04 AM

the republicans will stfu as soon as bush gives 'em a call. you'll see.

10/5/2005 10:48:21 AM

George Will has an elegant way of implying, "cronyism".

Quote :

"It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends."

George Will rumor: He stole a copy of Jimmy Carter's briefing book for Reagan's debate preparation.

10/5/2005 10:48:33 AM

I find it hilarious to think that two politically minded people never once casually mentioned abortion to one another, or that the subject never came up in 10+ years of conversation.

10/5/2005 11:05:08 AM

Well, Bush obviously lied. He didn't really have a choice.

10/5/2005 11:10:25 AM