Sorry about the minimal posting over the past couple of days, but as you can imagine it has been a little hectic in the new job. I'd like to tell you about all that I'm doing and what a fabulous opportunity this is to have a real impact on a storied institution, but then well as they say, I'd have to kill you.
And that would make me sad.
So, enough with the talking about death, lets talk about Supreme Court picks! Harriot our little conservative chariot to judicial restraint Miers got the nod eh,? I can't say I'm real surprised, nor am I particularly disappointed as some of my conservative brethren seem to be. First off, we really can't complain about the president making a "stealth" selection can we? I mean, how rich was it to read the NYT editorial today? God knows they would have complained about any pick Bush made, and with the recent example of Bill Bennett to demonstrate how many on the left couldn't care less about meaning and instead regard only that which can be distorted in their favor, it is quite likely that all future conservative picks will be of the stealth variety.
Do I believe this is good for our democracy? Not particularly, but to complain about it is analogous to complaining about the fever that was caused by your flu. Stealth picks are a symptom of the illness of leftist irrationality when it comes to judicial nominations. Make no mistake, conservative have their rabid pack too, but with regard to supreme nominations over the past twenty years, it is impossible to credibly assert that liberals have behaved with anything approaching fair play in the Senate's advice and consent role.
Truthfully, this is a real opportunity for the Senate. Were our senators to behave properly and ask informed, well considered questions of the nominee both they and the American public would probably learn quite a bit. Certainly, this could have been the case with the Roberts nomination. However, with only a few exceptions (amazingly Senator Leahy comes to mind here) the queries from both parties were disappointingly shallow and only served to illuminate that the president had pick a man who was far superior to those on the committee.
No, my only concern with Miers is this crony issue. She certainly does seem to have a good record, and her lack of judicial experience doesn't particularly bother me. By all accounts she is an accomplished member of the bar who has the added benefit of being smart as a whip. (As an aside, she actually was kinda cute in the 80's did anyone else notice this?) Yet I have to wonder how in all the country there wasn't a female of similar qualifications who didn't also carry the appearance of cronyism.
So, we'll see. Is it to much to hope for some quality hearings for a change?