bipolar:

Editorials in the paper are officially endorsed positions; the National Review column would be more akin to one of (the very conservative) David Brooks' columns for the NYT which appear semi-daily.

I don't believe David Frum represents the editorial board of the National Review; rather, he is someone they pay to write a column because they think he presents an interesting viewpoint.

Ah, my bad. I thought that Frum was THE biggest representant of the editorial board, I always thought he was the one pulling the most strings and representing the general opinion of said board.

I don't read it too often, mind you, I just like to read him mostly.

Apologies if my inital feelings were wrongly exposed by words badly reflecting the expression of my thoughts.

Sloth_DC:

No. If the NYT runs an official endorsement of Kerry, then it'll be assumed that the NYT endorses Kerry. If some random op-ed piece cheerleads for him, that indicates nothing about the position of the paper.

See my post above. I thought he was pulling more weight at the NR.

Atvar: OMFG! I know her!!

Biblically?

/Throws up in mouth a little.

flavor of the month:

great i got the whole system explained to me. career judges arent necessarily the best choice for the supreme court. some of the best in our history had none or almost no judicial experience. not having been on the bench of a lower court is an advantage in some aspects for a supreme court justice, as many authoritative decisions are wrongly decided, and someone who spent their career enforcing it may be reluctant to overturn it.

having said that, being a commisioner of a state lottery is not exactly the sort of resume that the rest of the non-judicial picks brought to the table. my initial impression is that this is a very poor pick and may even be rejected by the senate.

See... that's the kind of reply I'll GLADY reply to. When you call me a "totalfark asshole" all it makes me do is to give small credence to your opinion. When you actually type something worthy of being discussed and insult-free, I'm very interested in engaging in a debate or discussion with you.

As for what you said: I never said I disagreed with your first paragraph, but I would still prefer to have people having at least a little experience before sitting on the highest court of the country. I still don't think that precendent = universal law.

I wholefully agree with your second paragraph. The more I read about her (as I am doing, right now) and the organizations she's been involved with, the more I'm thinking IM got it right and that she's just a patsy. They'll probably throw Gonzalez after she's eaten alive by congress


"what, first you reject a woman and now a minority? democrats are the party of white old men, it seems!"

Immaculate_Misconception:

If I get a chance a bit later I'll try to do some digging.

I'm on my way to work right now, so I really don't have time. I know an attorney in Austin who dealt with her a lot when she was working with the Texas lottery, my understanding is that shes a real coont.

Thanks, I'll search myself, too.. I'm sure we'll eventually conjure up the dark powers of TotalFark and we'll come up with some dirt.