Honestly, I think I can make the claim that liberals have lucked out. When it first became apparent that Shrub would have to fill two SCOTUS vacancies and not one, I feared the ramming through of two Scalia-like Huns. I'm actually pleasantly surprised that didn't happen.
I'm not entirely happy about Roberts, but I don't think he's the anti-Christ either. I'm reserving judgment on Meirs until I get more facts.
Don't take this to mean I'm not wary or fearful. I'm VERY concerned about what could happen to Roe vs. Wade and the separation of church and state. Those are my two biggest issues likely to be confronted by the court in the short- to medium-term.
What I am saying, though, is that it could have been a lot worse.
I am curious, however. It's obvious that both Roberts and Miers are Bush loyalists. (Miers seems to think GW is the most intelligent person she's ever met. Quite scary.) It will be interesting to see how their loyalty pans out once Bush is out of office.
Posted by THespos at October 3, 2005 05:36 PM | TrackBackI thought the fuss over Roberts was pure politics...the guy is clearly qualified. However based on the senate's responsibility as set by the constitution I think you should be a little worried about Miers. This appointment seems to come pretty close to cronism. I know there are many that did not serve as justices before serving on the bench but her close personal ties to Bush should be a concern. This is exactly the kind of thing the senate is tasked with monitoring...not one's judicial philosphy as many seem to think.
Is she really the best out there for the job? I'm not qualified to answer but someone should ask the question.
Do it Tom...go on ask...
Posted by: James at October 4, 2005 08:57 PM
All comments are property of the individual poster who left them. Everything else, copyright 2005, Tom Hespos