does this seem relevant to anyone else?

"The President is to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, in the President alone, or in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

...

"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration."

Federalist Papers #76, Alexander Hamilton, 1 April 1788


dubya nominating his personal lawyer, who has no prior experience as a judge, and has in fact proven herself to be wholly corruptable, anti-union, and frighteningly pro-life... doesn't that seem to go against the very grain of what the federalist papers outline? for those of you unaware, the federalist papers were the supporting documents, the 18th century FAQs, sent out to the states to gain support for ratification of the constitution. they explicitly outline what, say, congress should be doing when a crackpot president decides to stack the supreme court with his cronies.

so not only has dubya fucked over the economy for a decade (minimum), foreign relations for two (minimum), but now he's fucking over fifty years for women who want to abort their parasites. 'cos that's about how long I suspect the impact of miers and roberts will last...

so miyuki, you ready to go back to canada yet? it's about to get REAL ugly down here...