In all actuality there is nothing I can do about a Presidential appointment and joining lines of protestors and waving posters is simply, not me.  But, I do have the right to register some thoughts about Ms Miers’ appointment.

Like all opportunistic predators, our President is using his power to appoint a new Supreme Court Judge in one aspect of nepotism.  His wife’s suggestion that he appoint a woman to replace a woman is noted not because it is feminism but it certainly smacks of cronyism. 

After the debacle of New Orleans floating away, crushed by two hurricanes under the watch of “Brownie” – unqualified, inept, lacking experience but willing to put the blame on local and state officials even though he did say the words – he accepted PART of the blame. “Brownie” was a very loyal minion of his President.

I personally will not allow this appointment and certainly all people of rational persuasion should not allow it either.  The Democrats should shed their lethargy and go out and demonstrate the will of the people that this appointment is not what our country needs.  Of course this is only a nomination but look at her qualification.  Her qualification is that she is a crony of the Bush crowd, a lawyer who has been close to the Administration.  We do not know much about her ideas and she has little in the way of records – she is a lawyer and works hard but what else? Her most arguably correct qualification is that she is loyal to Bush.

There must be many more qualified people available who are part of a pool of recognized legal talent from which this nomination should have been made.  Once again, it is cronyism of the most blatant kind in order to cripple our system by freezing the court in a future cycle of conservative findings about the Constitution.  She IS a conservative and worked for Bush.  That is not enough.  She should, like the pool of experienced lawyers and judges from who Bush could have chosen, have greater qualifications than those she presents.

In other words, this woman is a non-person except for the relationship between the President and his nominee.  Friendship in Texas, her assistance in the gubernatorial campaign and now as the White House Counsel is insufficient.  She is controversial like John Roberts. There is very little information about her beliefs in the current fights over changes in law about abortion and other rights to privacy. We have no information if she opposed the often cruel decisions that have hurt the majority of poor, impoverished, uneducated, immigrant and others who have not had entry into power because they lack that connection to the Bush family. I will not and you should not allow this nomination to proceed. Activism, anyone?