Redstate

Well said.

Is how in the world we got Harriet Miers instead of Pejman Yousefzadeh. I can't believe the President deliberately passed over Yousefzadeh for this crony. :-)

I disagree with you.

Harriet Miers is a great pick.  For those who deride her based on lack of judicial experience - William Rehnquist became judge under a similar situation.

Although I don't know Miers very well, I have met her, and she attended a church that I was a youth minister of in Texas.  She has a good head on her shoulders.  All of you are jumping the gun on this.

I thought that horaceox had some great points as well - take them to heart.

Thanks for your input, but I don't know you from... well... Adam.

So you'll pardon me for not feeling exactly comforted by this.

At the time of his appointment Rehnquist was a lauded Constitutional scholar and SCOTUS historian in almost all conservative circles, Harriet Miers is neither a Constitutional scholar nor has any practical experience with the Supreme Court what so ever.

To compare Ms. Miers to a young Rehnquist is an insult to the late Chief Justice.

I know that Harry Reid passed her name along to the White House in the form of a recommendation. I know that my own senior Senator, Dick Durbin, called Miers "a middle ground between the parties" on NPR this morning.

I see things a little differently.  During the debate over the judicial filibuster, Senator Reid once gave a list of names of Republican Senators that he said would be okay Supreme Court nominees knowing full well that Bush was unlikely to appoint any of them.   This enabled Reid to say "see, we're not totally against anyone the Bush administration would send" without having to actually follow through on voting up or down on any of the names he publicly okayed.

The fact that prior to today she was pretty much off everyone's radar screen except as a "long shot" suggests that Reid may have thought it "safe" to okay her because it never seriously occurred to him that Bush would be willing to nominate someone so closely aligned with his administration and him personally.

What was that people used to say about Bush's success being attributed to how his opponents "misunderestimate" him?

that would be great if you are

She's going to look like the small timer she is during the confirmation hearings in comparison to John Roberts. I still don't understand: why? Bush could've really stuck it to the Dems and gotten the American people back on his side with an Edith Jones or a Miguel Estrada. That would've been W at his best. But this pick makes no sense. Very disappointing. I feel sorry for conservative Senate candidates this time around. They've been hung out to dry.

The conservative apologists for Miers are essentially reduced to pleading that at least she's not as bad as a Kerry appointee, and oh shouldn't we be happy because she's a good Christian. But the undeniable fact is Bush could only choose her by passing over candidates with far better proven commitment to the Constitutional rule of law, who show Miers a dubious lightweight in comparison - e.g. Luttig, Brown, McConnell, Jones, Estrada, etc., etc.

Can the apologists for Miers get beyond how the good vibes from her personal qualities give them a feeling she's ok, and actually say with a straight face that she's a more reliable bet than the alternatives available to Bush?

I doubt even Bush thinks Miers was the best choice. No, he just thought it wasn't worth a fight to fill the Supreme Court vacancy with a reliable vote for the "What you see is what you get" school of interpreting the Constitution's text. He almost certainly would have won the fight to get a known adherent to Constitutional rule of law confirmed, but it would have been a bruising fight. Bush just didn't have the stomach for it.

Sadly this seems consistent with Bush's track record on domestic policy in general, and Constitutional law in particular. In the court challenge to the University of Michigan's policy of racial discrimination against Asians and whites, the Bush administration refused to unequivocally oppose racial discrimination, and filed a fuzzy brief pretty much in tune with O'Connors ruling, that racial discrimination is ok but you just can't be totally explicit about it. With "No child left behind," Bush let Senator Kennedy take him to the cleaners with more federal money and mainly lip service for standards.

When Richard Nixon became President with both houses heavily Democratic, his strategy was to largely go along with the Democrats' preferences on domestic policy in return for a free hand with foreign policy. That worked pretty well up to a point (if you didn't mind his wage & price controls, and the beginning of "affirmative action") and got him reelected in a landslide, but the modus vivendi fell apart with Watergate.

After Reagan's acrimonious struggles with the Democratic House majority (and Senate at the end), Bush 41 hoped for a kindlier gentler relationship, and from all appearances tried to emulate the Nixon strategy. He avoided criminal conduct that torpedoed the otherwise successful (in his eyes) Nixon strategy, but otherwise followed Nixon in rolling over for Democratic domestic policy while pursuing his "New World Order". The Democrats were happy to take him up on it, including a major tax increase and kicking his derriere in the next election.

Along comes George W. Bush, and he apparently also likes the Nixon model. Like his Dad, he doesn't commit crimes, and he also learned from Bush 41 that it doesn't pay to give in to the Democrats on taxes. But aside from those exceptions, Bush still follows the Nixon strategy of avoiding major fights with the Democrats on domestic policy. Social Security reform? Oh that sounded like a cool idea, until it looked like a big fight on Capitol Hill, then nevermind. Immigration reform? Try to outbid the Democrats on rewarding law breakers with green cards.

Like most others here, I'm disappointed about Bush's nomination of Miers. But I suppose I shouldn't be all that surprised.

to nominate whom he sees fit?

hasnt that been the argument against the dems fillabusters, or the dems questioning roberts?

is it only the presidents right if you agree with his choice, and not if you disagree?

I have tried to refrain from making a judgement about this all day in order to hear all points of view. I am now convinced that this is a sad and horrible turn of events.

I would have much preferred an extremely qualified and known moderate like Tom Campbell to an unqualified, who knows what like Harriet Miers.

I cannot possibly understand how Bush could have chosen Miers when there were plenty of conservatives that he could have gotten through without having to go nuclear.

Sure, Brown, Owens and maybe even Luttig may have been tough for him.

But McConnell is an intellectual giant who is respected by liberal law professors.

Karen Williams is an outstanding appelate court justice who could have easily gotten confirmed.

I am shocked but not awed.

This, in many ways, is worse than Alberto Gonzales  because we did not see it coming.

As pointy sticks go, that was a good one.

Nominations to the Supreme Court are the single most important thing the president does - they will ultimately determine the future of American democracy.  The issue is whether the Constitution will mean what it says and the people's representatives will determine the laws, or whether a random judge can codify his policy preferences by redefining the Constitution according to his own almighty whim.  Al Qaeda is a mere whining child compared to the destructive power of the Supreme Court.

By appointing Harriet Miers when there were so many others who were clearly better qualified, President Bush is taking an unconscionable risk with our and our children's liberty and our nation's future.  By this act, he demonstrates that he does not understand the seriousness of the position he holds, and that is an error that may cost this country dearly for generations to come.

Your post is a thoughtful one, and you do drive home the fact that we don't know very much of anything about this woman.

However, a nominee who was CLEARLY in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would surely have been filibustered in the Senate (Democrats openly threatened the President on this).  It would not have been a smart move to nominate someone with a good track record of being neo-conservative.  In nominating someone with no record, Miers will have an even easier confirmation than Roberts, who lost those Democratic votes because Ted Kennedy invented a reason from his track record to not vote for him.

I trust the president.  He took over a month to mull this nomination over, and I'm sure he probed Miers for her standpoints on key issues.  I believe she may very well be a covert Scalia, making it onto the bench under the radar.  

Of course there's the possibility that she may be a Souter.  But there's also a possibility that Roberts will be too.  Sandra Day O'Connor went onto the bench a much stronger conservative than she ended up being.  In fact, as split as the court is now, 7 of the current justices have been nominees of Republican presidents.  You never know.  

To those of you cursing the president, I ask that you stand alongside me and wait to hear more about Ms. Miers.  I'm sure the president would not intentionally put a moderate onto the court.  He's merely trying to make the confirmation process a little faster and easier with a nominee that no one (hence the Democrats, especially) will know anything about.  I'm more disappointed in you all that you think he should have nominated a clear conservative, because you know we only have 55 votes in the Senate, which is NOT enough to overcome a filibuster.  When the donkeys are threatening a long and stupid process, and you know they can, you go for a secret conservative, and I'm sure that's what President Bush did.

Seems to me there are a lot of people to choose from, younger and more experienced-more qualified.

I am sick of stealth candidates, and I have the impression that we aren't getting the "judge in the mold of Thomas and Scalia" that kind of judge would be an originalist.  Does this woman even have a judicial philosophy?  I suspect that she is conservative, but I didn't want just a conservative on the court-an activist conservative court is no better than an activist liberal court.

I am not at all happy with this appointment.  Just seems like there are better choices out there.

it also makes me think that Bush either doesn't understand what the debate on the court is over, or he doesn't care.

But then given the fact that she has worked closely with Bush (and we must get past the cronyism aspect of that) Bush probably knows her better than we do, and may know something we don't that would please us, but right now, this doesn't sit well with me.

Just makes me think Bush didn't want to fight, the sad thing is he probably sought to avoid it, because he was afraid of the poll numbers (which are currently all but in the tank). Had he gone for the fight, he probably would have seen them rise.  But right now if a pollster called me, I would likely not respond with much approval.

this woman may be as conservative as scalia but the reality is she is not vety qualified for this position.as far as i can tell she has no real experience in constitutional law and it seems silly to nominate her with all these brilliant

constitutional minds available. it just seems that

bush wants a friend on the court,just in case he needs her.she may look really weak during her hearings.i also think bush didn`t want a fight right now, the people are not behind a far right

choice even though a lot of people here think so.

One factor in this whole thing that needs to be mentioned is that of presentation and appearance.  In our media saturated age, perception and staging is extremely vital and the Bush administration knows this which is why this is so mind boggling.

In Judge John G. Roberts we had the very platonic ideal of a judge - his deep blue eyes, his boyish good looks, his almost cuddly charm and his picture perfect all American family.  How could you question his credentials, in other words, he looked the part.

On the other hand, Harriet Meiers was a fashion train wreck.  Imagine that you wake up in the morning knowing full well that your image is going to be on every news show and newspaper and you choose that ghastly cobalt blue number out of your wardrobe. It reads poor sense of judgement.  The staging was all wrong.  

And let's face it there was no  judicial restraint in her use of eye liner.

a "far-right" choice can get through the nomination process as long as the nominee proves he/she understands the distinction between being a judge and being a Supreme Court Justice.

I personally would like to keep the SCOTUS balanced (since I'm a moderate and like the idea of the SCOTUS balanced between the two prevailing political philosophies), but I would also approve of a conservative nominee that might tip the balance of the court as long as he demonstrates the ability to perform his duties as a justice faithfully and correctly.

On THAT court, ability far outstrips viewpoints.  I'd rather have a nominee that doesn't share my political philosophy but had a heck of a lot of ability over an inept nominee that happened to share my viewpoints.

The self inflicted wounds of this administration is a contributing factor.  While I never believed W would give us the kind of justice he promised, this increasingly insular WH has cut its own legs out from under itself, making a Senate fight not only impalatable to them, but most likely unwinnable.  And in classic fashion, when feeling weak, he turned to a Texas chum.

Who is Harriet Miers and why did Bush appoint her?  Bush hired Ms. Miers to vet himself to see if there was anything in his past that would hurt him politically when he or Rove began eyeing the White House.  She reported that the rumors about his National Guard service might be a problem.  We know that the "rumor" circled around Ben Barnes.  Then, Bush appointed Ms. Miers to the Texas Lottery Commission.  Nora Linares was the Director of the Texas Lottery Commission since its inception.  Gtech is the company that runs the lottery game.  Gtech had secretly hired Mike Moeller, who was a friend of Linares.  Moeller was also a casualty of Rove's "dirty trick" to smear Hightower (see Bush's Brain) for his client current Governor Perry.  Ms. Miers was instrumental in getting Linares removed.  Ms. Meirs stated that the commission did not fire Linares because of the Moeller contract, but to move the commission forward.  During the Linares controversy, it came to light that Ben Barnes was earning $3 million a year from Gtech for lobbying.  When Barnes quit Gtech in 1997, he and his partner received a $23 million severance.  Linares sued Gtech claiming that Gtech had given her bofriend a secret $30,000 consulting contract to have something to hold over her.  Gtech settled paying $725,000 to Linares and her lawyers.  The Texas Lottery Commission appointed Lawrence Littwin to replace Linares.  He did not last long because he was looking to replace Gtech.  Littwin also sued Gtech.  He claimed that Gtech had undue influence over the Texas Lottery Commission to fire him.  Littwin claimed that they had this influence because Ben Barnes, one of their lobbyists, had damaging information on Bush's guard service.  Gtech settled out of court for $300,000.  Ms. Miers had an ethic problem of her own with the Texas Lottery Commission, but of course she didn't get fired.  Ms. Miers firm represented GSD&M the lottery's advertising company, but she abstains from voting on advertising issues.  Ms. Miers followed Bush to the White House and now is his pick to sit on the Supreme Court.  Thus, she is a friend of Bush and is loyal.  Remember what a good job Mike Brown did at FEMA?  Many conservatives are upset because they are not sure what Ms. Miers views are on abortion.  They feel Bush should have picked a true, known conservative.  I have to laugh at the religious charlatans trying to ease their fears.  One thing they offer the critics is that Ms. Miers worked to get the ABA to not come out for abortion rights.  This is not true.  Ms. Miers tried to get them to let members vote on the matter before coming out.  Another ray of hope the charlatans try to give conservatives, is that Bush knows her and he would not appoint judges that did not agree with him.  Bush has never said that he feels Roe v Wade should be overturned.  While governor of Texas, Bush appointed moderates to the court who rulings "shocked" Joe Kral, the legislative director for the Texas Right to Life Committee.  The charlatans hold up that Ms. Miers attends an evangelical church, so this proves she would be pro-life.  Kerry attended the Catholic Church, which is pro-life, but he still felt that abortion should be legal.  It is unseemly to have an appointee so close to the president who is appointing them.  This has happened before with President Johnson and Abe Fortes.  Fortes served on the court from 1965-1969.  He didn't die.  He resigned because of a scandal.  Richard Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun to replace Fortes.  Blackmun went on to author Roe v Wade.

But he should not use it to nominate political cronies.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007354

sounds like a good person to know and a lousy bio for a supreme court justice.

Yesterday I felt nauseous... but this morning I felt a little better.  Why?  Because if she's a conservative - a big "if" - then why are we stressing ourselves out over the issue of her qualifications?

I'm a Supreme Court purist in the sense that I would would like to have the Court packed with highly intellectual folks.  The fact that scholars like Richard Posner (from the Right) and Laurence Tribe (from the Left) never made it to the Court - and that mediocrities like O'Connor and Souter did - is a deep disappointment.

However, my first order preference is to have a brilliant conservative.  9 of them, if possible.

That said, I would rather have a mediocre conservative than a brilliant liberal.

At the end of the day, what we care about as a society are outcomes.  As a lawyer, of course, I also want well-reasoned opinions.  But as a political person, I'll take well-decided cases over well-argued cases most of the time.  A case can have a strong logical argument but still be wrong as a matter of constitutional law.

She'll write one in nine opinions - and her law clerks will probably write the drafts, as is typical.  The other justices will review those opinions and comment on them.

With that kind of structure in place, and the fact that she's been practicing law for 30+ years, I'm sure she'll be at least mediocre.  I don't think she'll embarass us too badly.  How many of you - even the lawyers reading this site - actually read new Supreme Court opinions when they come out?  

Probably not many, unless it involves client work.

And if we get a conservative vote out of her appointment, that should somewhat compensate for her other drawbacks.

One thing still bugs me - her age.  Given that she's 60, an average guess for longevity would be about 15 to 20 years.  That's not much.  We could've easily had someone ten years younger.

However, Clinton also appointed a 60 year old, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to the Court in 1993.  And she's still there.

also came back later and said that his comments were not meant as an endorsement of Miers.

it was being played that way in the media.  I believe his first statement, not his subsequent spin.  OTOH, nothing that comes from him particularly worries me.

I'm with Patrick Ruffini ... I'm chillin on this.

(I wasn't yesterday).

I like some of the things that I've heard from people who knew her.

Does that mean I like her over Edith, Karen, or Maura?

  Nope ....

But I'm hopeful and I don't think that we've got a chance to block her.

AND, we will know what kind of justice we've got after one term ... in plenty of time to decide if we are going to bail on 2006.

Are we really supposed to believe that a thorough, nationwide search for the most qualified conservative Supreme Court candidate possible yielded the president's personal attorney?  Wow, what a coincidence!  The truth is, if she was a lawyer from Missouri rather than Texas and had never had an opportunity to work for a man named George W. Bush, she would never even have come close to being considered.  This crony pick MUST be rejected.

It would not have been a smart move to nominate someone with a good track record of being neo-conservative.

"Yo! Lenny! You drew a neocon judge. Better ditch O'Connell as your lawyer and get Rubenstein."

but this is interesting.

Hugh Hewitt has reproduced the MoveOn.org email to its supporters on Miers. And excerpt:

We've set up a simple web form where you can post facts and sources that will fill out the picture on what kind of Supreme Court justice Miers would be. We'll get your research to the media, the Senate and our partner groups. This info will also be crucial in setting MoveOn's course for this nomination. Even if you just have a few minutes to spare, it could help a lot at this crucial time.

You can post facts right now at:

http://www.political.moveon.org/judgefacts?id=6078-6365738-sMi4cvd5okeVTuQu
nmR9bg&t=3

I'm sure it ought to read, "You can post Known Facts™ right now at..."

I'm of the opinion that Bush could nominate another Ginsburg, and MoveOn would still fight it, but the fact that they are going to fight against Miers is a little encouraging.

quick support for Miers concerns me and supports what is said in this post.  I'm starting to be concerned that this appointment means that Casey will be the rule of law on abortion for the rest of my life.  What a sad outcome for the pro-life movement.

Harriet Miers would not appear on any other president's short list of 1000 potential Supreme Court justices.  Although a "trailblazer," I guess, of some type, that does not qualify her to be an Associate Justice of the SCOTUS.  She is from a second-rate law school -- as opposed to Roberts, who we heard repeatedly finished at/near the top of his class, where did Miers finish at SMU?  Then she went to a second-rate law firm in Dallas.  Whoop-tee-do.  Then she was president of the Dallas Bar Assn and the Texas Bar -- again, who cares?  Most of the time, you don't even know who those people are when you vote for them and no one really cares.  Then two years on the Dallas City Council and chair of the Lotto Comm'n.  Again, who cares!  What has she done to warrant being nominated to the SCOTUS?  NOTHING!  Even if she votes the "right" way on every issue I care about, she's not qualified.  She will never be qualified.  And this President has done a horrible disservice to his party, the Court, and the nation as a result of this cronyism pick.  

I have to ask this...do we really, really believe this is a choice to reward a friend/loyalist?

C'mon, are we saying that we do think GWB is that stupid to do something so obvious and blatant?

I'm not buying it, and have enough time to see how this unfolds.

let's leave the hysteria to the other side.

I saw a bit of Specter's comments on the news and he was acting like he barely knew who she was.

Is the problem with Roe that it legalizes abortion or that is violates federalist principles?  

If Roe is overturned, then the legality of abortion will go to the states, and there are many states that will legalize abortion and others that will prohibit it.  E.g, states in the northeast would likely legalize abortion, whereas states in the south would probably prohibit it.

Now, if Roe is overturned, instead of placing the abortion issue in the hands of a generally conservative national court and congress, it will be placed in the hands of many courts and legislators (a good number of which are liberal, pro-choice).  I would think that conservatives would want to keep Roe for now, while the court and congress are conservative and can effect restrictions on any abortion rights.  If Roe is overturned, the abortion issue would go to many liberal states, where there would be little restriction.

I think Roe is a bad decision because it is an affront to federalism, not because it legalizes abortion.  I don't think that overruling Roe will noticeably affect the rates of abortion in this country, let alone eradicate it (pro-choice women can self-select into states that legalize abortion, where as anti-abortion women will be happy to live in states that prohibit it).

The focus with Miers seems to be on social issues - abortion, gay marriage, etc.  But in the grand scheme of things, the issues that will really affect you and me are health care, tax issues, crime, etc. and these are all issues that the supreme court decides far more often than the so-called hot button topics (yeah yeah yeah gay marriage is gross and an affront to God, but in the end, my marriage is strong enough to withstand it and God will deal with gays as he sees fit).  

The debate on Miers centers on her positions with respect to abortion and gay marriage, but what about her position on corporate laws, congress' commerce powers, state and federal powers regarding crime and the president's executives powers (for the next three years we can predict that she would expand them, but what about when Bush is out of office?)?  How would she rule on the eminent domain case???

Fighting about Roe will never end, the question will just be whether the fight is at the door of the Supreme Court and US Congress or in the 50 state capitals.  I'd hate for America to lose the forest (everything else) for the trees (abortion, gay marriage).

that the issue of whether there is a constitutional right to an abortion, and the issue of whether abortion is for Congress or the states to regulate, go hand in hand.  They do not necessarily do so.

A steadfast conservative like Bork would, I assume, overturn Roe and also overturn any Congressional abortion legislation on federalism grounds.  But not all conservatives are in that mold.  Even Scalia and Thomas have been hesitant to declare that Congressional action exceeds the Commerce Clause power; there have only been a couple examples.

A vote or two could overturn Roe v. Wade but it would likely take more than that to send the abortion issue completely back to the states.  Congress has demonstrated its intent to legislate in the field (e.g. the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act) and there is no reason to think it will stop.   Indeed, the reversal of Roe v. Wade would pretty much be a green light for more restrictions at the federal level, with politics being the only check.

And if Congress shows its willingness to enact abortion restrictions, is the base going to clamor for the appointment of SC Justices who will strictly enforce federalism and strike down those restrictions?  I daresay the base cares more about abortion than about the abstract principle of federalism.

and if she is found unqualified by the Senate (which will come out during the hearings), both Dems and Reps should vote her down. Not filibuster, up or down.

That was definitely the most shallow, insipid comment of the day.

Maybe we can convince her to put a pretty scarlet bow on her robe and rubies in her ears so she can meet the demands of the fashion police.

Or maybe GWB can make it up to you by nominating Angelina Jolie next time.

Yesterday I felt nauseous... but this morning I felt a little better.  Why?  Because if she's a conservative - a big "if" - then why are we stressing ourselves out over the issue of her qualifications?

Those arguments don't cut with this poster on this topic.

Only the "Best of the Best" should be nominated to SCOTUS. Period.

I won't defend some mediocre choice just because he/she/it is "conservative". I won't even try.

and if she is found unqualified by the Senate (which will come out during the hearings), both Dems and Reps should vote her down. Not filibuster, up or down.

ConservativeD gets a cookie!  :)

Harriet Miers will do her job - she will not legislate from the bench.  I hope that's what we all want.

She is a person of principle and of honor.

I know that no one knows me here, and that's okay - you can take my opinion of a person that I've actually met and know a lot about, through conversations with fellow ministers as well as the person she has dated for a long time, the Honorable Nathan Hecht, Texas Supreme Court Justice - or you can leave it.  I really don't care.

I'm not worried at all.  Bush knows what he's doing - at least this time. ;)

How do you know if she is a strict conservative, or isn't?  Again, aren't you all jumping the gun?  I understand everyone's gunshy because of David Souter, but...arggh, whatever.

Perhaps, but that is exactly my point.  Bush's appointees must not only (1) wish to overturn Roe v. Wade, but also must (2) not be federalists.

Justice Thomas, for example, would probably overrule Roe, but it is possible that he would invalidate congressional action to criminalize aborion as well (Thomas and Scalia are often mentioned in the same breath, but Thomas is NOT a social conservative like Scalia, he is a strict federalist, see, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, in which he, in contrast to Scalia, argued that commerce clause does not give Congress the power to regulate marijuana grown and used intra-state.)  If the federal government can come up with a rational reason to regulate abortion, Thomass would probably go along with it, but it will remain a fight that conservatives will be engaged in because as the makeup of Congress changes, so to do the laws it passes.  

Conservatives thus far have been fortunate to have the libertarian Republicans on their side (conservatives wanted the liberal democrats out of power, libertarians wanted the free-spending democrats out of power).  But as the republicans of today begin to resemble the democrats of yesteryear with their spending, breadth of federal government action and so-called nation-building, the alliance between the two may falter a bit and republicans might find it harder to put socially conservative reps in office.

Judging from Roberts' answers in his hearings, he is probably not a strong federalist.  I doubt Miers is either.  

The irony in the rhetoric surrounding the judicial branch is that judges who are #2 above are the "activist" judges we hear so much about.  They exist on both the left and the right--any true originalist would explain that these judges expand the power of the federal govenment to places it was never intended to go, depending on their personal support of the particular argument.  The necessary and proper and commerce clauses along with the 14th amendment are going to be the exceptions that swallow the constitution.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/12818309.htm

What do you think about this?

I'm really pretty sure you CANNOT DO THIS.

People who deal in coyprighted material for a living get pretty upset when entire articles are posted on web sites.

You have been warned for copyright infringement. Provide a link to the article, and blockquote a relevant portion, not the whole darn thing. Thanks for contributing.

Feel free to delete if you wish.

Cheers.

I'm outta here anyway.