Good point, Frank. It's exactly the people who, when they were the age I am now, were thinking, "Things are as bad as they've ever been in my lifetime," who are now in charge.

And in a lot of cases I think it wasn't the issues per se (civil rights, women's rights, increasing secularization, etc.), but the way some people's perception was that they got rammed down their throats. Granted, you can get into a long and heated discussion that things wouldn't have changed if the issues hadn't been forced, and I also know there were many who vehemently opposed those changes on any level.

And in a lot of cases I think it wasn't the issues per se (civil rights, women's rights, increasing secularization, etc.), but the way some people's perception was that they got rammed down their throats.

And people thought Carter was a jackass as president, right?

What was your advice?

Charlie.

I think things are really crazy right now

It makes a lot more sense if you are really really rich. And own oil companies.

This is the main thing that bugs me about the "will of the people" though - I see that "will" as coming from a position of ignorance. I talk to so many Republicans who are okay with everything their party does for the insanely wealthy because they believe that they themselves are or soon will be part of that group. Just as soon as they get their raise from $60,000 to $65,000, they'll be in the American elite. When Bush revoked the inheiritance tax, they were happy...I asked "Why? Do you actually have a million dollars to leave to your heirs?" They had no idea it only kicked in at $1 million.

I could go on, but I will spare you.

Arrgh, aargh, aargh. I hope I only have to say this once: Roberts was the sixth listed name on a brief where Roe was stated to have been bad law. HE DID NOT PERSONALLY SAY THAT. A lawyer should NEVER be confused with the positions of a client. Even more so a government lawyer should never be confused with the position of the entire administration. As someone I read this morning noted:

Perhaps anticipating the objection that Roberts was merely representing the administration's views, Bazelon notes the "stark language" of the brief Roberts co-wrote, but this hardly makes the case. Attorneys have an ethical obligation to zealously advocate the position of their clients. An attorney in Roberts position had an express duty to advance his client’s – the federal government's – policy position as effectively as possible. If this meant attacking Roe head on (after all, Roberts did win the case, even if Roe was not overturned), Roberts would have been derelict in his duty had he softened the claim. This is particularly important because in the case of John Roberts, we are not talking about some wild-eyed zealot. Rather, we are talking about one of the most accomplished appellate advocates in the nation. The idea that the specific language used in a legal brief advancing his client’s position establishes Roberts' personal views is quite a stretch, and is dangerously close to suggesting that one should impute the positions of former clients to the nominees (at least if they are presented in forceful terms).

Roberts is good pick. All this hand-wringing over the Rust brief is wrongheaded and really irritating.

Oh, and, I've never been convinced that Thomas is an idiot. Would anyone care to prove it to me?

It just seems like I could go on and on...

You could. But I challenge you to find one single thing on that list that the current powers actually acknowledge as a problem.

And in a lot of cases I think it wasn't the issues per se (civil rights, women's rights, increasing secularization, etc.), but the way some people's perception was that they got rammed down their throats.

Uh huh. And the exact same arguments were made about reconstruction in the post Civil War south. I don't mean that you don't make a good point, just - I'm so tired of that argument, and I think it's very often (not here) made disingenously.

In utterly unrelated news, I've been toying with the idea of going back to school for my MLS.

Calli, I looked into the same at a particuarly depressed time in my career. I'll note only that at the time, UNC was ranked #1 (or was it tied for #1) in that area.

I do find it highly unlikely that someone who was an ACTUAL idiot to rise to the level of the Supreme Court. Or President, for that matter. I still think I'd rather sit in a room and talk with Cheney than Bush, but I don't think Bush is ACTUALLY stupid.

What was your advice?

Charlie.

Did you give a lot of "ewww, icks" in regard to Herbie?

Calli, I've been looking into library school too, and I gotta say, my impression hasn't been that it's all that much more employable than English. That said, what do you want to do with it? I've known people who have gone to NCCU and had good experiences there; they (I mean the school, not the students I've known there, but I'm too lazy to fix my sentence to make it clear) seems to do best in public and school librarianship, whereas UNC is definitely the big dog in the area when it comes to academic/research libraries and information science.

I'm pretty sure flea has at least toyed with the idea of going to one or the other as well, and she probably knows more than I do (as she works in the real live library and not the IT shop that happens to be in the library).