I liked Harriet, but especially because she was NOT an NT/NF abstract iNtuitive type. “Not one of us.”

We need more SC concurrence, not brilliant alternative opinions.

She was certainly “good enough” — but David Frum was certain she wasn’t, given other possibilities.

I felt that if Miers got into a hearing, she would be confirmed. With this feeling, I must agree with the anti-Miers strategy of over-the-top excessive frenzi (plural!) to make her withdraw before a hearing.

Hugh Hewitt says there was lies, denials, and damnation by the frenzied anti-Miers folk. I don’t like the lies or denials, but fully support democratic damnation by anybody for any reason — with the audience to decide on whether the reasons were worth it.

Now, let’s see a rematch on Bork type questions. Will McCain and the Gang (of 14, 7 Reps) support a real paper-trail anti-Roe conservative?

I think we’ll see. Bush’s recent “defeat” with Miers might, Hugh notwithstanding, actually make him stronger. Luttig, McConnell — I like ConfirmThem’s choice … Brown!

That’s all you need to see a real frenzy.

Hand flapping, spittle spraying, foam flecked losers, the lot of them.

The only things they are missing are a chair to stand on and an apron to wring their hands in.

The comments of Anonymous (6:32 PM) and likeminded others are far more temperate and measured than the notion a “feeding frenzy” mentality was exercised by one side in this debate while our betters, standing over and above us, divined the good, the true and the more worthy and articulated their position in an infinitely more civil, less presumptive manner. Please.

Democracy in action is not always immediately agreeable and this is especially so during a time of ideological ferment and what can even be thought of as a civil war, albeit within a limited sphere to this point. There were notable exceptions (e.g., Beldar), but the notion the pro-Miers and anti-anti-Miers camp, in general, trumpeted (and continues to trumpet, e.g., Hewitt) their opinions from a higher or more stable or more vaunted platform is – by no means whatsoever – apparent.

Well, guess what, my fellow disgruntled Americans, the whole reason why a good Judicial appointee is important is because of the state of the Judiciary AND the Congress.

Which also means, nobody with the right qualities in their right mind would subject themselves to the Senate and the Judiciary anymore.

Not after seeing Miers being roasted, and not even by her expected enemies, the Democrats.

Not after Bork, not after Thomas, not after ANYTHING.

It’s already too late. Which is the whole point.

It’s too late.

Now go away and do something else, like stock up with guns or something. Learn martial arts, befriend more Marines and Army, read up on war and psychology.

Trying to change the judiciary, will only push away good candidates.

We can keep trying, but Roberts was almost too good to be true. Unlikely there will be anyone “as good” as him.

It wasn’t blogers who originally said the Miers questionare needed a do over. It was a number of US Senators.

Spelling errors? Spell checkers do fine for most words. A law clerk could handle the rest. Getting the spelling right is important. The ability to express your self clearly in common words is important (that Thomas is my hero – I loved his Kelo and Raich opinions).

Most of the personal attacks started with the White House.

And what’s with the religion bit being the first qualification touted? It doesn’t sell well in America even among those of similar religious persuation.

Of the 25 Senators who interviewed her all (it has been rumored) came away with a less favorable impression than before the interview. If bloggers did that, then we have secret powers that I was not formerly aware of. I’ll have to look into that. There could be money to be made. LOL

There are two basic reasons I say this. First is that if something has a chance greater thn 0 it will occur. Second is that in some systems once that state occurs it dominates the system. It should be obvious what this means.

IMO bloggers are like this. The likelyhood of someone being, well, over the top is prety high. It’s fairly anonymous and fairly consequence free. That’s not *entirely* true, but it’s nothing like the MSM (they have thier own problems which I think are actually much worse). Second, add in that the system itself is totally voluntary who to read, is massive in choices (meaning only the top few interesting sites are read), bias is not frowned upon as long as it is open, and finally that type of thing is entertaining to many you have our current case.

The other group that dominates is the high quality people. On the right (or center) we have people like Instapundit and Bill Whittle – they are very good, informative, and interesting. Then you have the WWF (or whatever the World Wrestling Federation is called now – I guess I’m somewhat dating myself there 🙂 ) bloggers. It’s pretty much all you are going to see unless you look at the myriad not very interesting blogs, though this will make up the majority of political thought.

It’s a similar problem I think liberals and leftist are suffering from. Thier system of beliefes is such that those type of people tend to dominate the thought of that group.