Quote:
Originally posted by kddani
Lol, so you're happy being blissfully ignorant?
|
If you want to break my post down to that....okay.
However, a more discerning understanding of what I am "happy" about is as follows: I expected Bush to appoint Clarence Thomas reincarnate. I expect whomever Bush appoints to actually reach the Court as Republicans run the Senate. As such, I am "happy" that he did not appoint an open Clarence Thomas. No matter what Miers is or is not she is not an open Clarence Thomas which means that when issues come before, even if she has an inner Clarence Thomas, she can still be swayed AND save face. She doesn't have to live in Scalia'a azz as C.T. does because she hasn't made her name that way.
I am also "happy" that she could actually end up like a Souter. Now that is a long stretch, but definitely wouldn't be a possibility if Miers were CT #2.
So, to summise, I know that Bush is not going to appoint a Breyer - Bush clearly is no Clinton. I know I am NOT going to be crazy about whomever Mr. Pres. appoints. So, realistically, as I am not going to love whomever he appoints, I am "happy" that he either appointed an
a) an unknown with the heart of CT, but who is not a public CT2 so can actually consider the opinions of other judges and not just have to stick to her guns because she was appointed specificaly because she was a CT2; or
b) an unkown who may turn out to be more liberal like Daddy Bush's Souter; or
c) an unknown somewhere in between.
Seeing as she is a woman who worked through school and didn't just skate by on daddy's money I am willing to bet "c" is more likely- and I am "happy" about that, because out of my realistic choices- I'll take a "c" over a CT2 any day.
Threaded Mode