Miers Withdraws *sigh*

I don’t have to link it, really, since it’s all over the place. Sad, really, that the milquetoasts in the Senate, who’ve not had the stones to stick the Dems in the eye about ideological litmus tests (just whine about it) have given in to—or worse, joined—the loony RIGHT moonbats who wanted to do the same thing with Miers. No “sturdy conservatism of principle” in the Republican Party any more? Well, not much, it seems. Miers was more qualified for a SCOTUS post than almost every one of her detractors are for theirs as elitist snob naysayers. The egregious Frum, with his hypocritical attacks on Miers (he praised her and predicted her appointment in July of this year) is but one of the examples of those bigmouths who were ill-qualified (from a moral standpoint, at the very least—hypocrisy is a moral problem first of all) to comment. Let me post once again the 19th century Reformed theologian, R.L. Dabney, commenting on the kind of “conservatism” practiced by these week reeds: "American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It tends to risk nothing serious for the sake of truth."- R. L. Dabney Miers wouldn’t have been my pick, but then neither will anyone Bush picks next. This is yet another sad day for any genuine conservative. Mark my words: the Stupid Party has maintained its title with this one. *sigh* Linked at Stop the ACLU BTW, in comments "Annonymous" (or "AC" for "annonymous coward") pans Miers with no content to his pan and asks me "Did you see her questionaire?" My answer, here, is. "No I did not 'see' her questionaire. I read it. And understood what I read. I did not simply lap up the [sheep feed] being spread by some pundit." Anonymous (coward) obviously did not, since he (?) had nothing to point out from the questionaire, and no intelligent comment, observation or question to ask. And that, my friends, pretty much defines the lapdogs of the Loony RIGHT Moonbats. Nothing to say. "Sound bite" digs and "questions" without substance. And those were the yapping dogs (like the egregious—and hypocritical—Frum and castratti Republican Senators) who nattered on and on about Miers. All the while showing themselves to be less qualified to criticise her than she was for the office she'd been tapped for. "Stupid Party" indeed! This addendum from Jerry Pournelle: "I will continue to say it is no bad thing to have members of the US Supreme Court who did not rise through the judicial route. The American judiciary is a rarefied atmosphere and encourages the habits of power; a judge in his courtroom has very great powers, all of the low justice and much of the middle justice, and becomes used to having that power. Some enjoy it. Judges who came up through the political process have different views. Yes, Earl Warren, perhaps the most destructive Chief Justice this nation has ever had (Taney can vie for the appellation, but we need not debate that here) was without judicial experience; but so were John Marshal and Rehnquist... Both the egregious Frum and the abominable Schumer are crowing. My favorite scenario is that the President appoints Bork. Alas, Bork is too old, so it won't happen. But my favorite scenario would be appointment of someone who will really horrify the Democrats, and then stand behind her. Unlikely, I know. The Gang of Fourteen will have its influence." As Dr. Pournelle would perhaps say, Indeed. While I disagree with him about Robert Bork (brilliant and sound, but no temperament suitable to the bench, IMO), everything else in Pournelle's comment could have been written by a wiser and more literate version of me. :-) Read the rest at the link.