At the heart of the matter was whether enough was known about Miers’ positions to satisfy conservatives who want to see a seismic shift in what they perceive as a liberal Supreme Court.
Despite the court’s perceived leanings, seven of the current nine justices, including O’Connor, were appointed by Republican presidents.
I’m trying to figure out what this means.
What it could mean is that the radical right is never satisfied – seven out of nine judges is just two shy of a full puppet show.
Or maybe it means that no matter what the leanings of the Supreme Court, the whole thing always has to continually be pushed just a little farther to the right.
But I think what it really means is that no matter who picks the judge, the ones that have to look at the law day in and day out tend to be on the side of justice. And this perception from them of a “liberal” supreme court is an indication of just how far away from the center of justice the radical right has drifted. It’s become justice vs. agenda really, which is sad when you think that justice should be above it all.
What is most curious is the nomination by Bush of Miers to the bench. From the look of it, appointing a barely qualified candidate, seems more than just a slip of judgement or an “I’m gonna nominate whomever I like” sort of thing. I think the White House wants her to fail, possibly as a way to tenderize the entire legislative branch in preparation for a nomination for Alberto Gonzalez or something. We shall see, I suppose…