No Favoritism Here...

Lest I should be accused of infatuation with the handsome, charming, and coy John Roberts...tis time I bring an older woman to this blog. And to further assuage fears of me favoring conversations and thoughts about one supreme court nominee just because he's Chief, I tell you my absolute confusion over the logic of Commander-In-Crazypants is equally applicable in this case. There's a slight chance my Commie is turning Pinko if this keeps going the way its going. Harriet Miers, not a judge, ever.

Metaphorically speaking, Terry McAulay. Unfamiliar name? Metaphorically speaking, Tom Brady. Still unfamiliar? Well Terry was the head ref at the last superbowl. Tom was the QB that won it with a winning and kinda creepy smile. What am I talking about? In the Superbowl, (even the first few where they didn't wear helmets, routinely gouged out the eyes of the competition, and actually played with a small, petrified pig instead of a football) you would never think to switch Terry out for Tom or Tom out for Terry. Even though they are involved in different aspects of the same game. First off, Terry probably throws like a girl and would break several vertebrae if he got sacked. Tom doesn't go anywhere without his linemen--having that many on the field would give an unfair boost to the defense.

While this particular metaphor was used for humor's sake...you wouldn't find the Center and the Running Back switching positions for a whole game...or the linesman and the head ref. So why the junk would you have a non-judge become one of the 9 most important judges in the whole world? Once again, I don't understand why someone who lacks experience gets nominated.

And I'm not the only one. This case seems particularly bad. History tells us that many nominees have never been judges. Why? With no proven track record on constitutional interpretation, is it possible to be a good candidate? And now both sides of the political fence are saying the same thing...that poor Miers' resume is kaput.