Laughter in the blogosphere

... over conservative angst at the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

Suddenly the right is all upset about cronyism, heh. Seems suddenly qualifications matter. The CNN quick-vote poll shows 78% of respondants think some experience as a judge is required before being elevated to the highest court. Oh? Ya think?

Truth is, the cons are a little concerned about Harriet, because she has no court track record they can litmus. That, and her being a 'never-married' sixty-year-old woman, presents the possibility that she might be a stealth candidate, but for the wrong team, as it were.

Even if Ms Miers were, ahem, straight as a die, you have to consider the possibility that she might, perhaps once or twice, indulged in a bout or two of non-marital relations. Which would possibly make her a little more charitable about the pro-choice position that ones who only ever indulged in order to procreate, you know.

Of course, there's no way on earth of knowing - can you imagine Joseph Lieberman asking her under oath if she'd ever had sex? But that's the problem with stealth candidates. You just can't tell what they stand for.

...and to those on the right who are bitching now. Hey, you voted for him. You had to have known he was a stupid tool at the time. What, you thought he was your stupid tool?

HAA-ha-ha-ha... *snort*