Is This the Real Reason They Hate Miers?

Anyone to the left of Grover Norquist or the "Reverend" James Dobson doesn't have to say a word about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. The right is foaming at the mouth. So much so that many are also debasing Clarence Thomas, who was clearly a token appointment and not even a good one. Articles I've read over the years indicate that among right-leaning African American potential candidates, assuming Bush I chose primarily based on his color, Thomas was the dead bottom of the deck.

While they do this, they all invoice the name of David Suiter, a conservative appointed by Ronald Reagan whom they like to call "the leader of the left wing of the Supreme Court." Now, I'm no Supreme Court specialist, but I do actually read a far amount about the court, its cases, its decisions, and supporting/dissenting opinion. It is after all our third arm of America's overall operation.

Read Suiter and you don't see an idealogue. O'Connor - God love her - split the vote when she felt there were sufficient concerns to do so. The same is true with those that were appointed by Dem presidents.

Go back since slightly before Thomas' arrival and you see a court where the idealogue in chief is Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas his "ditto" yes man, and the late Rehnquist there to protect the uneven handedness of Scalia.

So don't let a nutwinger tell you they're rejecting Miers because she's "bottom of the deck" because a Bush has already given us a bottom scraper. They're rejecting her because they had decided on a few candidates and Bush did not name one of them.

Listen to David Frum, and you hear that if Libby and Rove are indicted, Bush will be forced by the conservobots to ditch Miers. Guess we'll see.