Initial Meiers thoughts

having just got out of bed to see this on the news, I am, like many of us I suspect, caught on the hop, which I am quite sure was the idea.  So these are my initial, instinctive responses to what I can tell about this woman (which isn't much)....  

NUMBER ONE: Very tentative optimisim.  The woman's name was apparently floated as one of the "moderate" choices.  I haven't had time to float on over to redstate or any of the conservative places, plus I don't like getting an upset stomach this early, but it MAY be possible that at this stage, with his shitty approval ratings and with his party imploding loyalty-wise in congress, Bush wants to avoid a fight.  But I don't trust him, and am holding this back pending further notice.

NUMBER TWO: Get the powder keg wet if necessary.  This woman has no judicial experience.  That alone is not in itself a disqualifier, there have been many justices in history, nominated by both parties, who have not had any judicial experience.  But what it does mean, and I'm quite sure this is deliberate, is that she has no opinions out there.  Therefore, this is not a case where the democrats can let bullshit answers about a "general judicial philosophy" fly.  She's either gotta answer, in detail, questions about where she stands or the Dems need to stand against her.  

NUMBER THREE: We're dealing with G-Dub here.  Travel to and through the hearings, as a community, with eyes and ears open, because we can't trust this guy.  

I'm curious to find out more about this lady- these thoughts are fairly obvious, and I'm sure that in the five minutes it took me to set them down, ten other diaries on it have appeared, but c'est la vie- have a good one, Kossacks.