I got to thinking tonight...

I know, dangerous...but I have it covered...

Bush. Interesting read today on some characteristics of Bush and something struck me. He is a born-again Christian. Now we know many of them that give that a bad name and further, many more that scare the bejezus out of less religious folk. But: turn the other cheek; do what is right, not popular; stand up for your principles; associate with people of good character; do not speak badly of your neighbor. In general, I see that Bush has lived up to those. I have come to a decision on Meirs...

I have read George Will and Ann Coulter. I have read the debates (such that they are) on a dozen blogs and listened to the talking heads for the last 36 hours. Two things have been of interest.
Bork. A legal genius. Very conservative. Big fight. Lost. Got Stevens.
Thomas. A legal lightweight. Conservative. Big fight. Won? Got Thomas.
Souter. Got Souter, lost.
Roberts. A legal genius. Conservative (?). Minor fight. Won.

After the last 20 years, all the wonderful legal minds we have on the current court, we get Kelo. Also, for those completely normal people, there was a ruling a couple years ago In re Seminole Tribe that is just terrible. We recently lost a case against the State because of that case, the state ignored the bankruptcy court and we couldn't do a damn thing about it....couple lost their home.

Ann Coulter thinks we need the best legal minds possible on the court. Rush makes the point that we don't want "touchy-feely" types making decisions. It seems to me that the result is Kelo. Law without compassion is not JUSTICE. Was it the best legal minds that found privacy in the constitution? Does ANYONE think that privacy is bad? You know, the Founders probably never envisioned that someone standing on a hill could not only hear what was being said in the house over the hill IN THE NEXT COUNTY, but could READ what was being written at the same time. Our Constitution is designed to change, to be changed, we just don't want judges doing it. It doesn't seem to me that it takes the best legal mind possible to understand that.

I don't think Bush is beholden to his base. I think he cares more about this COUNTRY than just about anything else and his actions are designed to promote that. Seems to me that those that voted for Bush in the first place (and the second place) did so BECAUSE he cared more about the Country than polls or being liked. Seems to me that the nomination of Meirs is exactly in keeping with HIS goals. That he chooses people based on his faith and trust in them should be considered a POSITIVE. Maybe Meirs is NOT the best LEGAL mind available, but if Bush looked around and said this is the person I most trust NOT to legislate from the Bench, then he picked exactly the right nominee for his goals for the country.

I for one (and there are damn few of us) am willing to accept the nomination and pending any information that suggests she is unfit to serve - being Christian, woman, lawyer, not a judge, not the best legal mind are all not issues - she should be confirmed.

Update: How many people now complaining about Bush's pick were stating that he had the right to have his choice approved absent any evidence that he was unfit?