The ledge is getting crowded.

But let's not overreact. So she doesn't know basic constitutional law. So what? YA FUCKIN' ELITIST.

Another dollar, down Ye Olde Crappe Hole.

For every dollar Monty withdraws, I'm donating two.

SOLID B+++!!!

The president has obviously made a great pick here. Sure, she's not perfect, but we have to trust the president.

Now, I've got to go make a sandwich.

Speaking of not knowing basic constitutional law -- the "Equal Rights Clause"?

How much looser does shit get than that?

I was bracing myself for a big bite of Hubris' shit sandwich when Miers took her place on the bench, but I'm actually starting to think she might not get confirmed.

I mean, the expectations for her performance in the confirmation process are so low they're practically subterranean, and so far she's failing to meet them. And George Will has decided to do another column on the nomination, apparently on the grounds that his last piece was a little too ambiguous. This just gets messier with every passing day.

Allah beat me to it.

The "Equal Rights Clause?"

What happened to those vaunted "layers upon layers of fact-checking?"

Oh, sorry....

Lani Guiner's proportional vote for minorities should be read as proportional voting for THE minority; minorities in the political sense, not racial.

Apparently, some European systems weight the voting in elections so it's not as winner-take-all as the American system, gives more parties say in governing. Dont know much about it, dont really care, either.

But it still casts suspicion on Guinier because even if she thinks that's a keen idea, it's not part f our law and Constitution.

So, Harriet Miers, whose greatest gift to the court would be her organizational skills and meticulous attention to detail (so we're told) turns in her answers late and apparently half-asses them?

Ace - the one-person/one-vote principle most definitely does derive from the equal protection clause of Amend. 14. The "guaranty of a republican form of government" clause was held non-justiciable, meaning the courts cannot use it as a basis for any ruling. This holding goes back to Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849) and has never been seriously questioned by anyone on either side of any constitutional debate.

It's bad enough for Bush to nominate someone this pathetic, but then when she keeps crapping over her chances to actually make a decent impression, it changes to farce.

Now if we could only get CAIR opposed to her nomination, Bush might actually fold. Can't offend the religion of peace now can we.

This is good news. It gives Republicans on the judicial committee some cover for voting her down.

That Democrats are favoring Miers because they fear someone "worse." This alone is proof we could have had someone "better."

By the way, Miers could demostrate some of that well-touted loyalty to Bush right about now and offer to withdraw her name from consideration.