The SCOTUS debacle.

(SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the United States)

I think Harriet Miers is a bad choice. Because she is a woman? No. Because she once donated money to the Democratic Party? No. Because she is a Bush crony? No.

She is a bad choice because I think the President flinched. In other words, I think he put Miers up there because he thought that the support of the religious right, the same folks who he thinks got him elected, would be so strong, that the Senate would have to confirm her. I don't think he trusted the conservative base and the Senators enough that a mildly controversial nominee, someone that the Democrats really hated, would be approved. Believe it or not, I think this says more about the 55 Senators than it says about the President.

I get the idea that Bush is behaving like my wife when I say something stupid in front of a bunch of people: he's kicking the conservatives under the table and giving them dirty looks to get them to shut up. "Can't you get that she's going to overturn Roe v. Wade?" "Just trust me," he says. Well, I don't know if that is what I want.

See, I'm all about overturning Roe v. Wade. But why should I be shortchanged on every other issue simply because that is the issue Bush is pushing? It's like Bush is acting like a liberal on this. He is appointing a judge to the Highest Court in the Land simply because she is going to act like an activist judge on one issue.

I mean, how do we know how she is going to rule on, say, the Patriot Act? How is she going to rule on Prayer in School? The environment? I mean, if Bush is appointing her to SCOTUS on this one issue, and willing to bypass the others to get her confirmed, what is the point?

I think we can have our cake and eat it, too. I know that there are many more qualified folks out there that could fill this spot. I also know that most or all of the folks on that list would be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade... in time. I just don't understand why Bush won't give us the best of both worlds.