But I don't. Hopefully, she'll wind up being the best Supreme Court justice ever, one true to the Constitution and unswayed by the political currents.

But right now, she looks like a truly indefensible choice.

Or just a truly random choice.

No resume, no true experience, no "pedigree". Nice choice!

If they are letting people from SMU Law, I could easily be on the court too. Associate Justice Ron Mexico. Just has a nice ring to it.

Oh come on, Meirsy will do a heck of a job... just like Brownie did at FEMA.

Bush just needs a wider circle of friends.

I can't help but think that he picked her because she doesn't have a judicial record that can be attacked. This may be the future of judicial nominees. With filibustering of judges being the norm now, the only people to nominate are successful lawyers with no writings that actually spell out their opinions on how the constitution should be interpreted. If they have not been on the court, they can easily distance themselves from briefs they have written as being advocacy rather than judicial in nature. That is a shame, but I think our legislators' filibusters may assure that few, if any, judges are ever nominated to the high court again. If one side or the other feels that your judicial approach will hurt their ideology more than help it, they will filibuster--even if your temperament is without politics. If a strict constructionist gets your political ideology into law, then you want strict constructionists. If viewing the constitution as a living documents that can be amended by judges gets your political ideology into law, then you want that type of judge. (Personally, I think the living document argument is right, but it should take a vote of the people to change it, not the stroke of a judge's pen. Thus, I am for strict construction and power to the people.)

I'm not sure her experience with the Texas lottery commission bodes well. It seems to me they're frequently in trouble over one scandal or another.

Anyway, I was reading an article recently that said we need more non-judges on the Supreme Court. It made the argument that the court needed a broader background of experience from the private sector so that someone would be able to consider the real-life implications of certain rulings. Not sure I really agreed with it (it seemed to mainly argue this point from the view that Big Business needs an advocate), but there could be a certain sense to it. I probably should've paid a little more attention to it before I turned to chuckle at the amusing hijinks of Marmaduke.

When she said Dubya was the most intellegent man she knew, I knew we were in trouble. She really needs to get out more.