Riddle me this...

When Delay has a judge that is partisan, the judge can't set aside his politicals to rule effectively.

When Bu$h nominates a partisan attorney like Miers, he tells us she can set aside her republican ideals to rule impartially from the supreme court.

Quite perplexing...

First of all. It doesn't matter that the judge going after Delay is partisan. And it doesn't matter that the defence is, "Every senator does that stuff, it's just a partisan judge attacking him." All that means, is that all the senators, or at least all the guilty ones, need to be indicted along with Delay. It doesn't give Delay the free pass.

As for Mier's, we don't know if she's partisan or not. We don't know too very much about Miss Mier's, which really doesn't matter, because as you said, being put in that position requires one of relinquishing personal beliefs and interpretting the constitution.

The problem arises, in that regard, when you have judges that have previously sworn to throw away those personal convictions and interpret the constitution justly. Apparently that is not the case with the Texas judge, who appears to be motivated through his personal grudges.

Both are independent. But you'd have a better case going up against a sitting judge who's using his personal politics to attack a politician he doesn't like, than a woman we know little about, who is going to go through a meat grinder in order to get appointed to her position.

Riddle me this . . .

How do you reconcile your characterization of Miers as "partisan" when she contributed to Al Gore's campaigns?

I don't know why she would give to the Al Gore campaign when he was running against "the best governor ever," but one drop of food coloring doesn't change the color of the ocean.

Cute metaphor, but nonresponsive. You could argue every pick of every president is "partisan" merely by affiliation. In the case of the judge hearing the Delay case, he too, contributed to a campaign (Moveon.org), yet that alone doesn't make him partisan.

Right, so giving a few bucks to Al Gore doesn't mean that Harriet Miers isn't George Bush's little right wing monkey. All I was saying was that a donation to Gore 2000 doesn't make her the most bipartisan human being to ever walk the earth.

You're contradicting your own argument. If giving money to Al Gore doesn't make Miers anything but Bush's "little right wing monkey," then being picked by Bush to be the Supreme Court nominee, merely because she was a Republican President's choice, surely doesn't make her the partisan political "little right wing monkey" either. You can't have it both ways.

Are you saying that the only evidence we have that Miers is Bush's monkey is that he chose her for this nomination?

Um, doofuses, she didn't give to Gore 2000, she gave to Gore 88.

To his Senate campaign? That makes more sense than giving to his Presidential bid.

She gave to his 88 Presidential bid.




Duh.

Al Gore ran for president in 88?

Yup, he lost in the primaries.

Had he invented the internet by then?