She wrote it in 1968 as a law student. Please, if people are going to criticize her, they have to do better than that. How about the fact she worked breifly for Melvin Belli in 1970? Are you goin' to San Fran- cis-coooooooooooo!

John: “And then, depression set in.”

- Stripes

OMFG! Now we're dredging up her college term papers! Did she draw horns on Dwight Eisenhower's picture in third grade! Inquiring minds want to know!

Full Disclosure:
Since my younger days I have reconsidered many of my former positions, namely that the Constitutional Convention was a "Total Sausage Fest", and that Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity "was likely the result of some really kind bud".

Ok, forgetting that this was something buried in the footnote of a paper done by a law student nearly four decades ago, how does:

"courts...have ruled in decisions involving vital policy questions with great success."

Equate to being a "pretty big enthusiast for the Court resolving "vital policy questions."" ?

What am I missing?

I hear in undergrad, she thought the fab 4's subversive bowlcuts "may not endanger the republic."

I think I've seen enough - this is a closet Ruth Ginsberg.

She's the friggin Manchurian candidate.

Point is, this may have been the last time she's had to consider big-picture jurisprudential questions... Until less than a year ago.

Ridiculous.

This just in:

In December of 1968, Miers made an ass out of herself by referring to The Cowsills' new album as "The ginchiest."

Manchurian Candidate?

*looks around for a deck of cards and hunts for the queen of diamonds*

Now this is funny. Also this.

Point is, this may have been the last time she's had to consider big-picture jurisprudential questions... Until less than a year ago.

So are you're saying that her opinion (if that was even really her opinion) probably hasn't changed because she may not have written anything about constitutional law since 1968, or because she hasn't thought about it?

This is actually very silly. Throughout the 20th century, most state courts "both changed common law where it became obsolete and ... ruled in decisions involving vital policy questions". To the extent Texas courts thought that common law should continue unchanged unless the legislature changed it, they were outside the mainstream. This concerns state common law (such as torts) and is part of a centuries old tradition of judge-made law that has no analog in Federal courts.

So far, the most enthusiastic endorsements of Miers I've seen amount to, "Well, she's not that Pinhead guy from the Hellraiser movies." Still, this is quite a reach. For crying out loud, she was writing this drivel nearly forty years ago. She could have knocked over a liquor store and the statute of limitations would have run out by now.

Last anonymous comment was me - sorry.

Now this is funny

OK, this cracked me up:

Wouldn't it be funny if Souter and I got married? Like our kids would automatically be Supreme Court Justices! j/k I know how the Constitution works.

The problem with Miers is that we don't really know where she stands, or how she would rule. Bush is asking us to accept her on the basis that he really knows her, which is a tall order from the guy that brought us the new presciption drug entitlement, mass illegal immigration, and God knows how much money that will be thrown at New Orleans.

If she's a constructionist, hooray. But we don't know and real conservatives have been burned before (I can't even stand to look at that asshole Souter).

But what I'm really going to miss is a showdown in the senate. A real armageddon-like, make or break battle with the demoscum that continue to get away with acting like they are the majority. It's damn hard to stomach watching the GOP slink around like they are still powerless. Pardon my french, but I despise those spineless pussies.

It's amazing to me that Bush can see with perfect clarity that we need to take the battle to terrorism, yet cannot see the need for conservatives to do the same to liberalism.

But Bush Sr. never had the ability to have a heart to heart with Souter before he nominated him. Bush Sr. could never ask Souter how he would rule. I bet my life on it that Bush Jr. has confronted Miers with these types of questions. Unless she looked him straight on and lied her ass off, I believe George has a better idea of how she will vote, then any other president has ever had of any other nominee.

I already read this statement from Miers:

"I never believed in an activist court. Honest... I ran out of gas. I, I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts. IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD."

Looks like a legit excuse to me.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

I’m far from a Bush apologist. I have criticized him for his failure to reign in Gov’t spending just as much as I have applauded him for his foreign policy initiatives. The one constant that I have seen in Bush, is that he is a man of honor. When he has said something he has meant it.

I think the “disappointment” on the Conservative side is the lack of an “in your face” nominee, like Estrada or, heaven forbid, Gonzales. I don’t know that Bush knows Estrda, Owens, Luttig or McConnel. For those choices he would have to rely on a paper trail and reccommendations from advisors. There is no question that Bush knows Meirs. Perhaps he knows, and we don’t, what kind of Justice she will be. She obviously has one qualification that those others I mentioned don’t - she will be confirmed without a filibuster.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Bush and Rove are sitting in the Oval office laughing their asses off, with Bush telling Rove how he got Reid to suggest Meirs for him. I’m not saying “Trust Bush”, I’m saying that we should look at the empirical data (his Judicial nominees), look at the quality of the man (Bush) and wake up to the fact that he has known and trusted this woman’s judgement for over 10 years. He KNOWS how she thinks, the Dems don’t.

I personally think that Bush nominated someone that shares his Judicial Philosophy that will leave the Dems shaking their heads, take the prospect of a filibuster off the table and result in a seemingly bi-partisan confirmation.

Or, I could be wrong about all of that and Bush is seriously lacking in intelligence, is politically naive and is just resulting to “cronyism” to repay a loyal attendant.

I have no idea what any of this is about, and I haven't the slightest understanding of matters of higher jurisprudence (I don't even know if that's the right word), but I think this woman, whoever she is, should come to my house and explain her stand on everything to me personally. 'Cos I'm a voter, which means I'm one of the 280 million Kings and Queens of America!

I think this woman, whoever she is, should come to my house and explain her stand on everything to me personally.

I think Cindy Sheehan is first in line - after all, she's a bereaved mother.

Mark Wilson at 4:57 speaks wisdom.

Ace, please don't suggest that opposing Jim Crow was activist. There was a constitutional amendment or three that say such a stance hadn't been for 100 years - and it was Plessy that was activism by ignoring them.

I think this woman, whoever she is, should come to my house and explain her stand on everything to me personally.

If you think she's going to lick your pit, forget it!

Ace, please don't suggest that opposing Jim Crow was activist.

Ace fell asleep that day.

Mark Wilson at 4:57 speaks wisdom.

What kind of name is 'Mark Wilson at 4:57'?

I am not sure what President Bush was thinking when he decided to nominate Harriet, but I wonder if he wasn't thinking that she was a close relative of DIRTY HARRY? Or possibly HARRY had a sex change unknown to us and she/ he is in fact DIRTY HARRY? Unil we know all the relevent facts, we'll need to with hold judgement. I have this awful feeling that President Bush is playing Lucy to our Charlie Brown.

I hate to be pedantic, but ace is probably too young to remember that the Summer of Love was actually the summer of 1967 and not 1968.

Click here for details.

And oddly enough, it was one of San Francisco's rainiest summers on record.

All I know is that this ain't the summer of love.

(extra-bonus geek points for that one)

Volokh found a piece of writing where she tells us we just have to live with mass murderers because we're not going to take away the right to bear arms.

That's all I really need to know about her. If she actually believes it's more important to retain this archaic right to have big guns nobody needs and we just have to live with innocent mothers and their babies getting their heads blown off at the Arby's, she's got a big thumbs-up from me.

Miers = Hitler

Miers = Pinochet

q = -0.5 [b + sgn(b)sqrt b(sq) - 4ac]

The President's press conference today rocked. Absolutely f'n ROCKED. It's official - I don't care about the Miers nomination anymore. President Bush can nominate his terrier if he likes and I'll throw a BARNEY FOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE parade. The man has won back my heart and he can do whatever he wants.

what, did he tell Helen Thomas she was stuck on ugly or something?

No, hang on, I typed it out for Laura... let me find it again.

Here we are.

Reporter: "In our latest poll..."
President Bush: "Your latest poll?"
Reporter: "I know you don't care about polls..."
President Bush: "Well, you run one every day."
Reporter: "Mr President..."
President Bush: "So you're talking about yesterday's poll, as opposed to tomorrow's poll?"
Reporter: (pleading) "Mr President..."
President Bush: "What's a good way to fill up space, Richard?"
Reporter: "Mr President... uh, how do you react to a poll saying..."
President Bush: "Oh, ask the pollsters, Richard."

You really had to hear it for the full effect. I was choking down incredulous laughter at the sheer undisguised contempt in his tone. Laura calls it his "How do you like me NOW?" mode.

It was simply beautiful to watch.

You know what's annoying, the way they never tell you who the asswipe is he's humiliating. Like when they start barking like jackals and haranguing the press secretary I think they count on some anonymity, so we won't spit on them on the street.

I think the President ought to call on them by name: "Yes, Mike Rotchreeks from DoucheBC, what's your stupid rephrasing of the question I have answered 5 times already?"

Like that.

Oh, I forgot, that happened too. :) Someone asked him a recast Miers question for about the fourth or the fifth time. The President's response: "Hmm... I guess I have to start over. I hope you're listening this time."

he was feisty eh?

have to catch it tonight.

Oh they won't show you that part. If the President stops to think about a question for a second they play the entire pause so he looks like a puzzled bonobo. But they protect their own, and if the guy gets a good shot in they never show it later.

The exchange about polls is 50 minutes in, if you go by C-SPAN.org's version of today's press conference. It's pretty funny (but perhaps not worth sitting through the previous 50 minutes for).