Democrats and Republicans are up in arms over Bush’s choice to nominate Harriet Miers, his personal Esquire, to the U.S. Supreme Court. And why? Because they do not feel comfortable with where she might vote on the court on issues of importance to them. Rather than the correct objection, that it is a patronage appointment. Why do they not object to this nepotism? Because they do it themselves all the time: It is business as usual in Washington.

It is the President's prerogative to select ANYone he wishes to sit on the Supreme Court. Indeed, there is NO requirements in the Constitution for whom this person appointed may be. Ted Bundy or Kofi Anon qualify.

The Senate confirms, or rejects the nominee. That is their prerogative. Ted Bundy or Kofi Anon presumably less likely to qualify, unless they have been big contributors.

There is no requirement that a Supreme Court nominee be a current or former judge, or even be a lawyer. And good argument could be made that non-lawyers can not be any worse that the current occupants who recently decided that no where in the Constitution is government denied the ability to seize your hard earned property by force and give it to another individual for no reason other than to make more money for government (Kelo decision).

The only guidance the founding fathers left us is found in an excerpt of the Federalist Papers #76 by Alexander Hamilton on the requirement of Senate confirmation of Presidential Appointments:

.... 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.

It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

So, go Bush, go! I gave up trying to make sense of you, your administration, the Republicans, and the predicate "Conservative" Republican a long time ago just before leaving your Party, and decided to just remain amused. In this specific case, a lifetime of amusement. So, go Bush, go! I just hate to see America when the bill soon comes due.

Don't vote! It only encourages them.