I never thought I would say a thing like that but check out Krauthammer

[Bumblebee]

in the WP:

Withdraw This Nominee

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601468.html

[FVZA_Colonel]

1. Overall, it was intriguing.

By that, I mean that it is intriguing that someone who has so repeatedly supported the Bush administration would level such harsh criticism at them (I mean harsh compared to what he's said before).

[Bumblebee]

4. wrong placing :)

[FVZA_Colonel]

6. Np, I've done the same thing before.

n/t.

[rpannier]

2. I liked only two things about his article

1. Withdraw
2. 1989-2017 Presidents Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.
Sounds like he's almost accepting that the pukes are nearly dead.

[Bumblebee]

5. It's the fact that he is so pissed and ready to eat Bush alive!

[marbuc]

3. No thanks, I'll take your word for it.

But if this terminal shill is advocating withdrawal, the WH problem must be serious.

[MissMarple]

7. Before Katrina and Michael Brown, he may have gotten away with it.

Harriet may do "a heck of a job". That is not a good thing.

"Miers will surely shine in her Judiciary Committee hearings, but that is because expectations have been set so low. If she can give a fairly good facsimile of John Roberts's testimony, she'll be considered a surprisingly good witness. But what does she bring to the bench?

This, say her advocates: We are now at war, and therefore the great issue of our time is the powers of the president, under Article II, to wage war. For four years Miers has been immersed in war-and-peace decisions and therefore will have a deep familiarity with the tough constitutional issues regarding detention, prisoner treatment and war powers.

Perhaps. We have no idea what her role in these decisions was. But to the extent that there was any role, it becomes a liability. For years -- crucial years in the war on terrorism -- she will have to recuse herself from judging the constitutionality of these decisions because she will have been a party to having made them in the first place. The Supreme Court will be left with an absent chair on precisely the laws-of-war issues to which she is supposed to bring so much."

[flowomo]

8. excellent column! really good arguments and strong language...

"If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her."

"To nominate someone whose adult life reveals no record of even participation in debates about constitutional interpretation is an insult to the institution and to that vision of the institution."

and more

[gumby]

9. I might be the least interested in winger arguments

about the Supreme Court if they had not already shown their hand.

Wingers like Krauthammer don't give a shit about the Supreme Court. Was he yelling and screaming over the Judicial Coup by the Hack Court in 2000? Of course not. Krauthammer doesn't care about the basic tenants of democracy or the court.

His little tirade only shows that wingers are never satisfied.

[dchill]

12. "... wingers are never satisfied."

Indeed - they will only truly be satisfied when they control the US government to the point that they can do away with rights and freedoms - to "interpret" the Constitution as being only about rich, white males (who are Republichristians.)

[dchill]

10. Krauthammer misses at least one salient point:

Every Bush nominee is/has been a joke. From Dick Cheney onward.

Krauthammer is a joke. A bad one, but still a joke.

[NNadir]

11. Krauthammer is a piece of Nazi shit. He's just jumping the sinking ship.

Fuck him.

[Bumblebee]

13. Precisely -- but that's what makes it so sweet. I cannot

stand the guy, he gives me creeps -- but to see him turning against Bush is so delicious. It's the ultimate in eating their own!