I’m not shocked at this. After all, according to Laura Bush, part of the reason she was picked was because she is a woman.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers supported affirmative action goals in the early 1990s when she served as president of the State Bar of Texas, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.
Read more at Reuters.com
Popularity: 1% [?]
Tamiflu is the latest word to hit the auto-kill list in the comment section. Get your google juice somewhere else you spam monkeys!
Popularity: 1% [?]
All new bloggers should cut this out and tape to their monitor; right next to their password. (Hint you can’t actually cut the screen – you have to print it first)
10 Things I Hate About Your Blog
Popularity: 1% [?]
Buchanan has so many good points in his latest column, “Why did Bush do it?“, that I can’t post them all. Just read it.
Popularity: 1% [?]
This might be one of the best conservative pieces on why Meirs is the wrong pick.
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.”
Randy Barnett writes:
As the quote from Hamilton suggests, the core purpose of Senate confirmation of presidential nominees is to screen out the appointment of “cronies,” which Merriam-Webster defines as “a close friend especially of long standing.” Cronyism is bad not only because it leads to less qualified judges, but also because we want a judiciary with independence from the executive branch. A longtime friend of the president who has served as his close personal and political adviser and confidante, no matter how fine a lawyer, can hardly be expected to be sufficiently independent–especially during the remaining term of her former boss.
Read the whole article here: OpinionJournal.com
Popularity: 1% [?]