1 But Pelosi and Reid both recommender her to the President! She does not need to be opmpetent. She will get voted in and that is all W is worried about. He lost his spine last Feb after the beating he and Frist took on Bolton. Reminds me of the Brits after WW1; they (with the exception of Winny) became pacifists. Bush has thrown in the towel. If Roberts did not convince you Miers should.

2 Yeah Rod just him and that warmongering Roservelt. History and Math ........ each sooo different

3 You mean these weren't Brunch Memos?

4 Just to be clear. I'm on the other side of the "abortion" debate from most of you guys, but for entirely different reasons than most "liberals." (I think treating a blastocyst as a human being leaves an open door to totalitarianism.) And I'm sympathetic to Miers for no better reason than nostalgia. I'd like to get he phone number of that sorority sister of hers that wore the cowgirl outfit to the school fair in 1967, even if she's like... 58.) I think someone with a good mind and an affinity for non-bias would be a good choice for SCOTUS even if they disagreed with me about almost everything. Because I think, in the long run, I could convince such a person of my views. No two ways about it. But I'm beginning to buy the notion that the Bush folks are an unserious crowd, who were very fortunately influenced by a few very good and knowledgeable people. Of course, the proper way to approach her questionnaire would be to gauge the quality of her arguments, rather than her spelling. I just haven't gotten around to that, thanks to Wilma. Then again, it's not all that surprising that a math major can't spell worth crap, is it?

5 Oy. Just... oy.

6 Improbulus: I just can't convince myself that there's any realistic stopping point, if one is willing to regard a blastocyst as a human being. It's true that it develops into a human being, given the right circumstances (gravity is necessary, for instance). But why wouldn't a strand of DNA be entitled to life? Why not a molecule of guanine? These all are part of the development of a human being, under the right circumstances. On the other hand, the instant a human responds to someone else with a glimmer of recognition that it is someone else then that's a person. Of course that point is a little vague at the margin, but there is clarity on either side of it. And if you can show me that a blastocyst responds to "another" in this way then I'd be willing to invest that entity with all of the human rights guaranteed in the constitution to individuals, among which are "life, etc."