Post a Bush-helpful lawyer (Miers) to our Supreme Court?

One who has never been a judge...and thus has no known judiciary record to assess? How will her lawyerly achievements tell us much about her constitutional interpretation?

What confuses me is how Democrats appear to be getting behind this, and Republicans whining because she's "known" to be more liberal than they wanted, or so the media reports. Shit. This makes me horribly nervous.

She has worked for Bush, actually been hired by the man: how does this not represent a conflict of interests between the executive and judicial branches, regardless of what people think her conservative-liberal divide is?

Or is this just plain common practice? (I know there's always a connection, but come on...)

Mini-Rant generated by Genuine Fear for the Future: The court represents our system's future, and whether or not the people become alienated from the laws governing them might just be an important issue. Having judges with private connections to partisan members could be another step towards having an even more class-/politics-divided system with no egalitarian approach to structures that really effect our lives... a further divide between the laws for Bush et al, and the laws which have prisons on the rise in Texas and beyond...

When Bush got elected to office, oddly this was my biggest fear: Roberts and then the unknown...