I know I'm a bit slow about posting this, but nobody else did so I don't feel so bad.

I'm a bit relieved.  My initial hope for Ms. Mier's nomination was soon replaced by neutrality, and later by a bit of distaste.

What I'm trying to figure out is whether or not the nomination was a massive blunder, or a strategic placeholder designed to occupy the interval during "indict a Republican" season.  I'm sure Stewie has some insight into this matter.

So, let me offer a secondary candidate the President should consider.  Janice Rogers Brown.  She's a powerful candidate and she isn't afraid to throw off tradition in favor of common sense.  Moreover, she writes her court opinions in common english, not in some flowery legalese mumbo jumbo.  Unlike most other lawyers, judges, and politicians, it is reasonably expected that an average citizen can understand what she's written.  That's an admirable trait.

-b0b
(...drifted from the topic.)

---

Well I can tell you one thing.  A President will never  NEVER NERVER! nominate someone who is not going to be confirmed.  And I do mean never.  While it's obvious she was just a place holder...I do not know what reason it was for.  I think we will know the truth when Bush writes his memiors.  Bob you're choice is fair, logical, and completely ok.  That's why she's not going to get it.  Bush wants someone who will agree with stuff like Eminent Domain and Patriot Act.  Your nomination would not be into that.  She is a smart lady.  So I think she needs to be in a state Supreme Court where they decide whether or not to follow what's passed down from the fed's SC.  I really wish I had a theory on this one.  Look at her and look at the controversy and what's she said in the past that has come out.  Bush and his admin staff knew about these.  It takes a minimum of 4 months to "vet" someone for nomination.  Any questions?

X
(Thinks everyone who voted for Eminent Domain should be shot or given to China)