Deregulator: Alive since '85!

How atypical am I? I didn't opine on the Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court because: a) by all accounts, he's a very bright, qualified man who knows his way around a courtroom and has confronted constitutional controversies for a quarter-century; and b) Bush didn't ask me who I'd put on the court. (For the record, the 9th Circuit's Alex Kozinski would be a Brian McCann shot over the wall. But Kozinski's too honest about his views of the law to ever be confirmed to another federal bench.) From what I've seen and heard, though, the Miers pick is entirely different, because, well, it alienates people like me. I tend to vote Republican for one reason: The alternatives are unpalatable. The Libertarian Party is a joke; it lost me forever after 9/11 when its leading lights expressed sympathy with the view that Osama, et al, had legitimate grievances for U.S. foreign policy. To the extent the Democrats hold any discernible views, they seem to be based on a mo...

Miered in Congress Want some local knowledge about the Harriet Miers nomination? Virginia Postrel, who hails from Dallas (and notes that much of her family income is provided by SMU), has cogent thoughts here and here . For starters. By all means, go to the main site here and keep scrolling. Virginia's point on "Miers-Briggs Jurisprudence" strikes particularly close to home. Over my many lifetimes I've worked for extreme "S" types, who may lack either the interest or inclination to look beyond their own experiences and think the world is simply an extension of what they know. They can make wretched bosses -- if they're in a position where setting long-term goals is important. Meantime, Peggy Noonan nails this point: I find myself lately not passionately supporting or opposing any particular nominee. But I'd give a great deal to see Supreme Court justices term-limited. They should be picked not for life but for a specific term of specific length, a...