Now, how do you avoid the inference that you would expect Miers's decisions to be based on her personal experience, not just on the law?

Really? It seems like the batshit crazy rightous right’s cage has been rattled far, far more…

Case in point.

Really? It seems like the batshit crazy rightous right's cage has been rattled far, far more...

But we also need a judicial system that won't find some abstruse constitutional theory that allows them to overrule the legislative branch.

Bithead, I don’t agree that Miers is the best that Bush can get through a Senate with a 55-Republican majority.

Neither do I.

Of course, where we DISagree, is that Bush HAS a 55 Republican majority.

Isn’t that what it means when you say he couldn’t get anyone better through the Senate?

Given the state of the Senate, wouldn't you say it was the best move to make?

Pat
I would rather our legislative branch had the courage to pass a good tort reform bill that would scare the crap out of these lottery -lawyers.

I have no problem with under God in the pledge, I have no problem with prayer in school, nor do I have a problem with religious holidays in school. I do how ever have a big problem with over zellous, hipocritial religious right wing republicans in the U S Congres and Senate. Our forfathers wrote a constitution that seperated church and state and it's about time to abide by it. As far as Roe v Wade, the court mearly stood up for a woman's right that never should have been chalenged in the first place.

And as a matter of proven fact the state of Texas never had a worse Governor than Bush, that is, until we got Perry. Oh yes, I would like to wish a Merry Christmas to Tom DeLay, I hope you enjoy Huntsville.

My point was that tort reform is urgently required but Scotus, to date, has not taken any substantive cases that address the issues. Miers knows commercial litigation, has the experience of working in one of the worst states (from a tort reform perspective), is numerate, and is not on the side of the Trial Lawyers Association. From the WPO Today:

"Miers's letter urging Bush to veto legislation came as lawmakers were debating a host of measures he had pushed that were aimed at limiting lawsuits. The Texas Supreme Court had announced that it was going to launch a study of contingency fee arrangements, in which lawyers agree to take a case in return for a percentage of the verdict, which prompted trial lawyers to lobby lawmakers to pass the bill in question.

Bill Whitehurst, former president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, said lawmakers were concerned that the state Supreme Court was "getting ready to do something that was not the court's prerogative."

But Miers called the legislation an "assault" on the state Supreme Court's authority to regulate and discipline lawyers and said the legislature had overstepped its bounds. If the bill became law, she warned, it would only benefit special interests that had "brought shame on this State, badly hurt our economic development efforts and continue to this day to cause our State to be held in disrepute for 'justice for sale.' " Bush vetoed the bill."

Merck lost their first Vioxx case in a Texas court because a stupid jury could not understand and did not want to understand technical evidence. Here's the WSJ on that case:

"Merck argued that Vioxx couldn't have caused Mr. Ernst's death because, according to his death certificate, he died of an arrhythmia or irregular heartbeat, not a heart attack. While scientific evidence suggests Vioxx can promote blood clots leading to a heart attack, no data have linked the drug with arrhythmias."

"Jurors who voted against Merck said much of the science sailed right over their heads. "Whenever Merck was up there, it was like wah, wah, wah," said juror John Ostrom, imitating the sounds Charlie Brown's teacher makes in the television cartoon. 'We didn't know what the heck they were talking about.'"

I want a SCOTUS judge who will stop this crap, not by legislating from the bench, but by ruling whether the legal devices, such as class action law suits, are actually constitutional.

No.

You miss the point. Unrestrained power is always a problem which is why many people prefer the executive and at least part of the congress to be of different parties.

But diversity can also exist within a single party. However Republicans thought to commit themselves to a machine that punished dissent. They nurtured an administration in hubris.

The consequences were predictable to our founders. That Republican's failed to remember them calls into question their loyalty to "traditional values."

They elevated a leader to the status Washington warned against. Now some are seeing the consequences.

Whic is good. It's the way the system is supposed to be. One does want a poloitical system based on the vision of Rove or "dittoheads" where one rigid ideology rules and bad people are punished.

Republican's can gain from the conflict which the recent nomination has brought to national consciousness. As the president (quite correctly IMO) imitates aspects of Jimmy Carter they can see that he followed the legacy of LBJ with massive war and domestic spending increases magnified by deficits and then oil shocks.

It is time to get serious. The game playing of recent years pretending that government was focused on potential crisis will have to cease.

I regard tort reform as a major priority. Miers is the most likely to understand the economic damage the current system has done. She would be Bill Gates pick for the court, or Merck’s, or Dow Corning’s.

So we're supposed to have judges who decide cases based on their own personal experience, not on the law and the merits?

Yikes. Where have all the conservatives gone?

(There are good reasons, btw, why the Constitution is not written to allow Microsoft, or Merck, or Dow Corning to nominate justices.)

Congrats to Stotch, btw, for keeping OTB lively in JJ's absence.

Bush will likely get one, maybe two more picks.

We don't know if any of the "more qualified" candidates have looked at what happened to Bork and Thomas, looked at their own records, and then decided they don't actually want to go through the process. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest a couple of the hot names turned down the White House.

Miers did argue and win a 12th amendment case. Noboy else on the SCOTUS has done that.

The Rino's, the gang of 12, the cry babies and the grand standers could all bail on the President if the Democrats stamp their feet and throw a tantrum. Look what happened to Michael Miranda.

Miers should please the NRA. Which other current justice packed heat?

I regard tort reform as a major priority. Miers is the most likely to understand the economic damage the current system has done. She would be Bill Gates pick for the court, or Merck's, or Dow Corning's.

Conservatives should stop insulting and belittling the President's pick until the confirmation hearings start. Then we'll learn whether she is as good as W thinks, or as bad as Will, Krauthammer, Bork and Kristol claim.