Fox News is saying they have been told to “expect a [SCOTUS nominee's] name at any time”

I was disappointed the first time he didn’t name Janice Rogers Brown. This time, I am gonna be pretty pissed off if he doesn’t. Some might find it crass, but today, the day of Rosa Parks’ funderal, seems a somewhat appropriate day to nominate the first black woman to the United States Supreme Court.

Don’t get me wrong - I am not saying she should get the job because she is black - she shouldn’t. But I see no problem in the timing of the announcement being governed by that fact should she actually be the nominee.

Am I only only one that thinks all the conservative opposition to Harriet Miers is born from a desire for a SCOTUS Justice that will uphold their personal beliefs?

That’s my read on Harriet Miers. I can live with that. In fact, I am betting that Bush is counting on her past background as a Democrat to pacify the left (Harry Reid did suggest her to Bush). He will have a harder time with some Republicans, but not those part of the gang-of-14.

My gut says Harriet Miers is to the right of O’Connor but to the left of all the other conservatives on the court. Roe v. Wade doesn’t get overturned, but state partial-birth abortion bans and parental notification laws are upheld. Gay marriage? Anyone’s guess.

The far left might be pissed. The far right might be pissed. That gives me confidence Miers is the right pick to replace O’Connor.

A Texas Democrat is about the same as a California Republican. I was born and raised in rural Texas and I have lived in the SF Bay Area for a total of 8 years now - I speak from some first-hand experience. Hell, I didn’t become a Republican until last year.

I’m good with Harriet. Would have been happier with Janice Rogers Brown (a California Republican - ahem), but good with Harriet.

**UPDATE**

I am never suprised at how Michael’s opinion on everything goes no deeper than the first web site he read it on.

**UPDATE**

Gay Partiot has a preditions list that is ended up 2 for 3 at the moment.

**UPDATE**

Check this out - keyword site traffic analysis for this blog today…:

Num Perc. Search Term
————————————————–
24 41.38% harriet miers lesbian
5 8.62% harriet miers marital status
4 6.90% harriet miers gay
4 6.90% harriet miers gay rights
1 1.72% panties moments caught on tape
1 1.72% harriet miers birthdate
1 1.72% disaster thy name is harriet miers
1 1.72% miers domestic partner
1 1.72% harriet miers racist
1 1.72% is harriet miers gay
1 1.72% harriet miers lesbian?
1 1.72% harriet miers hypocrite
1 1.72% sexual orientation of harriet e miers
1 1.72% prism warden
1 1.72% is harriet miers a lesbian?
1 1.72% harriet miers lesbian
1 1.72% birthdate of harriet miers
1 1.72% harriet miers gay
1 1.72% harriet miers gay marriage
1 1.72% harriet miers birthdate
1 1.72% related:www.limeshurbet.com/
1 1.72% birthday of harriet miers
1 1.72% gay marriage in minnesota september of 2005
1 1.72% gay harriet miers
1 1.72% harriet e. miers lesbian
—————————————————
58 100.00%

Can someone fill me on in why a flat tax is a bad idea? Yeah, it is Steve Forbes shilling for his book, but it is still a valid question.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Sound familiar? It is part of Article I, section 3 of the United States Constitution. That was also how the founders intended that Senators to be chosen.

In 1913, the 17th Amendment was ratified and that sentence was simply restated by changing two big words:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

With the Republicans about to resort to the “nuclear” option to overcome Democrat stonewalling of judicial nominees and Democrats threatening to bring the Senate to a screeching halt if they do, maybe it’s time to rethink ‘ol number 17?

I don’t pretend to be well versed on the potential ramifications, and an all out repeal may not be the way to go. But it is not acceptable for the members of the Senate, regardless of party, to threaten to stall Senate business for political purposes. We didn’t put you there for that. We put you there to get OUR business done.

It may be time for some kind of change. Discuss.

**UPDATE**

Or, there is this perfectly viable option too.

**UPDATE**

Mike comments:

The Dems are blocking a handful of extremist conservative activist judges, in line with their “advise and consent” role, and that is MY business.

Intellectually honest people are willing to concede that the intent behind “advise and consent” was an up or down vote. And that doesn’t seem to be the tune that was sung not so very long ago:

Barbara Boxer - 5/14/97:
“It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.”

Ted Kennedy - 3/7/00

“The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: ‘The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.’ Which is exactly what I would like.”

Pat Leahy - 6/18/98

“If we don’t like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down. But don’t hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of Senators really shame all Senators.”

Holding the majority hostage to your ideology, regardless of who is in the majority, is completely unacceptable, and several prominent Democratic Senators agreed no so long ago.