[*] I also wanted to say ...

... that Pat Buchanan is a blustering jackass. Look: I've not said much about Harriett Meirs because there's nothing to say -- she's a blank slate. You can't complain about something that is not inevidence except to say, "I don't see anything."

Buchanan, in this editorial, is simply out of control rhetorically. Is this really as bad as it gets, Mr. Buchanan? Could George Bush really have done nothing worse than this? In the worst case -- the worst possible case from where we sit in history -- we have no idea who Harriett Meirs is. In 2 years, if she was appointed, we could say something based on her record. But right now all we can say is, "there's nothing to talk about."

Right now, there's nothing to say about her.

There is something, however, to be said about Pat Buchanan who bills himself as a maverick political entity and complains when someone not built into the system is nominated for a place in government. What could be said is, "I'm sure those grapes were sour anyway, Pat." Saying that does not undercut the seriousness of this appointment to the Supreme Court. Saying that simply derides Buchanan for thinking he can be a maverick and an idealistic rebel and an insider all at the same time.

UPDATED: I was trying to research this topic myself, but it turns out that the Christian Science Monitor has discovered that nearly half of all Supreme Court Justices had little or no prior judicial experience before serving on the bench. While you may have some problems with some of the justices cited in this list, and it may actually incite the case against Harriett Meirs, it is information to put in the hopper before getting all bent out of shape, and then mixing your metaphors.