Friday, October 07, 2005

You don't, do you, Baldric?

It has not been an easy week to be a dissenter from the prevailing orthodoxy that George W. Bush is a blithering idiot. One would presume that from the moment he first threw his hat into the ring that he would begin thinking about who he would nominate to the Supreme Court. In six or so years, one could reasonably expect that he could come up with a list of experienced jurists of demonstrated experience, right-leaning enough to make his constituency happy, yet of proven even-handedness and integrity great enough to make to his opponents look petty for cavilling at them. So given all this time to think, he nominates his own lawyer? Is this a cunning plan? One would suspect, no...

4 comments:

Dave said...

I doubt it goes much beyond her position on Roe vs Wade, if I were to guess.

Dave said...

Or maybe she knows where the bodies are buried (although - again, if I had to guess - underneath Rangers Stadium)

Dr. Clam said...

Well, one problem with both the recent nominees, from my perspective, is that they don't have a public position on Roe vs. Wade. There are plenty of experienced judges out there who we know would overturn it on the obvious legal grounds- i.e., it is a matter for the states to decide, over which the constitution has granted no power to the federal government except via extreme mental gymnastics. Bush hasn't used his majority to try to get some of them on the bench, like he would if he really cared about this stuff. Instead he is nominating people that nobody knows anything about and displeasing everyone, instead of just upsetting the atheistic latte-sucking blue-stater scum. He is trying to be sneaky. I guess. Or else you're right about the Rangers Stadium thing...

Dave said...

Oh, I didn't think there was a public position. My guess is that whatever Bush's reason is (and here I shall make the generous allowance that he wasn't just backed into a corner to stop lollygagging and make a decision and he picked the first person he saw) it's based on personal knowledge and 'gut' 'instinct'. It's the sharp-edged rationalist perspective that he brings to everything else, after all.

As for the candidate herself, she's on the record as describing His Presidentialness as the most intelligent man she ever met, which to say the least does nothing to certify her suitability for high public office in my view.