The Anchoress

…in The Godfather, part III.

Every time I try to stop writing about the Harriet Miers story, it pulls me back in.

From the NY Times: All the Republican staff members insisted on anonymity for fear of retaliation from their supervisors and from the Senate leaders.

From the Washington Times: Staffers also said many of them chuckled over a biographical “pocket card” of talking points about Miss Miers that the White House distributed for use by any senator wishing to praise the nominee. “They had to double-space it,” said one aide, laughing.

A conservative lobbyist for Republican judicial nominees said that fighting for the Miers nomination has been “utterly joyless.”…”I don’t even want to be in politics anymore,” said the lobbyist. “Why don’t I just give up and move to suburban Maryland and work in communications for some big corporation?”

I think we need to have a few more people in Washington, and maybe on the bench, who are better than these dishonorable and guffawing creeps and whiners.

Strong language, Anchoress.

Betcher ass. And I mean every word.

It seems that snotty, eternal adolescents who lack character and who stand around sneering and laughing at their perceived lessers are not only the problem of the far left. We have them on the far right, too, and I am as disgusted by them and their snorting high-school superiority complexes as I have ever been with their counterparts on the left.

I left the Democrat party when it appeared to me that it had been taken over by goose-stepping, “Jawohl-”shouting automatons who were happily refusing to think for themselves, in order to be of use and service to der party, with whom they had to agree - to which they felt compelled to conform - if they wanted to move ahead or, indeed even stay their pace.

The right hasn’t gotten that bad. Yet. But I am becoming more and more disgusted by the weird, edgy, dug-in disdain (beyond the snorting “she’s not as good as we are” elitism from these Senate staffers) from some that says, essentially: Contrary to everything we said one month ago, the president is not entitled to his nominee and Harriet Miers - above all - must be withdawn before she has her time before the Judiciary Committe.

This leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Americans are many things but ultimately they are people who appreciate fairness, people who - perhaps naively these days - believe that everyone is entitled to his or her day in court.

So many people I have respected, and still respect - but differently, now - seem to believe that no…not everyone is entitled to his or her day in court, not if they do not approve.

Americans cannot like watching that. This American does not like watching it.

Not that it matters, but a few days ago, I wrote this:

Perhaps Priscilla Owen begged off this time, not in the mood for the hatchet job the dems would do on her having just endured a “mini-hatchet-job” last year. Perhaps Luttig has a “nanny” problem that he doesn’t wish to have bandied about and W is simply being discreet about it and taking the heat by not naming him.

Perhaps McCain and his merry band of 7, plus the usual RINOS did precisely what Novak said they did, telling Bush they would not FIGHT for such nominees, because they are all about looking “moderate” and having the press kiss their toes and so W knew going in that he would NEVER get his nominee passed…this was pretty much what I was suggesting today…that Bush is saying, “you don’t want to fight? Here’s Harrie - whom you do not like, but whom at least I TRUST…so I’ll name her…Now, you preening, media-addicted, cowardly effers, when Stevens retires, DON’T EFFING TELL ME YOU DON’T WANT TO EFFING FIGHT for the next one.”

I am beginning to think that while that first part might well be true, perhaps the second part is a bit off. Perhaps after losing his most favored female nominees, while still determined to select a woman, President Bush chose Harriet Miers because he took a look around Washington and realized the place is being choked to death by people who believe the study of the law is sublime, but the practice of the law is vulgar, and upon realizing it decided that maybe - just maybe - appointing a few unglorious creatures to a few vainglorious posts might allow in a little fresh air…and freshness of mind, too.

But “thawing” David Warren (as quoted by Hugh Hewitt says it better than I:

…Perhaps the great Texas jurisprude, Lino Graglia, put this best, in an interview with Hugh Hewitt. To paraphrase: the Supremes are in the habit of arrogating to themselves decisions that should really be made by the people (on everything from abortion, pornography, and school prayer, to all-male military academies in the State of Virginia). Power naturally flows to their heads. Yet the Constitution had nothing to say about such things, and explicitly left what it had nothing to say about, to the people. It is this trust in the people that has made America the beacon she is.

And Harriet Miers may be exactly the sort of real-world type who can understand that. And George Bush, from knowing her well over a long time, is in a good position to know she knows. She doesn’t need bells, whistles, and law degrees from Harvard and Yale. It might even be helpful not to have them.

Yes…it might.

The apparently banned-from-Red State blogger AJ Strata and Hugh Hewitt are also commenting on these buzzing “anonymous staffers.” This piece is over-written and deeply in need of editing, not to mention punctuation. But I am betting it was written in anger and haste, and it merits a read because it is a warning with red flashing lights.

UPDATE: Prof. Bainbridge has an unscientific poll up wherein you may vote yea, nae or wait-and-see. I voted wait-and-see. You can vote here.

I wish someone would poll HOW SICK ARE YOU OF THIS SUBJECT???