[quote name='Drocket']The 'hostile takeover of the American government by the insane lunatic fringe' thing isn't merely referring to Florida in 2000. Its very much an ongoing process.
In case you haven't noticed, Bush & co have been outsourcing everything they can get their hands on to outside corporations for grotesquely inflated prices. They don't even try to hide this - they downright BRAG about it (except for the 'grotesquely inflated prices' part, of course. That part they're strangely silent about...) Meanwhile, they continue to strip the EPA, FDA, FEMA, and other branches of the government dedicated to protecting citizens of funding and manpower needed to function, while rewriting bankruptcy laws to resemble something you'd see in a Dickens novel, and doing everything to gut the consumer's right sue. All this while trying to destroy Social Security, give even more massive tax cuts to the rich, and handing billions over to corporations under any justification they can come up with on the spur of the moment.
Ultimately, Roe v. Wade is a misdirection from the Bush administrations true intent: creating a government controlled entirely by corporations, which are in turn controlled by a small number of wealthy elite. Roberts and Miers both make perfect sense as Supreme Court nominees: both have a long, long record of arguing for giving corporations absolute power over everything.
I do think that Roberts and Miers come from different positions, on a personal level. Roberts sees himself as one of the wealthy elite who will control the world, or at the very least, he'll be near the top of the heap (and lets face it, its working out pretty darn well for him, so far.) Miers, on the other hand, is - well, not stupid, per se. Weak-willed is probably the better term. A natural born follower, who will do what she's told.
Edit:
A bit more regarding Roberts, and why Bush didn't pick another one: the problem with people like Roberts - the 'natural leaders' who desire to be among the ruling class - is that they are, by and large, backstabbers, who'll betray whoever gets in their way in their eternal quest for more power. This makes them dangerous. Roberts, however, is a reasonably safe canidate - his life, by and large, revolves around Roe v. Wade, specifically getting it overturned. Bush has little need to fear Roberts, as Roberts life work will always be ensuring that abortion is illegal. Finding another like Roberts is difficult (apparently impossible.) The drive that a person like Roberts has to succeed would virtually always wind up being a drive for power that would threaten Bush. And so, Bush wound up having to pick a spectacularly unspectacular canidate, simply because she's safe - she supports all the policies that Bush wants supported, while at the same time presenting no threat of eclipsing Bush. Not QUITE the perfect canidate (better qualifications would certainly help), but definitely a very good one, based on Bush's needs.[/QUOTE]
Wow, and I thought the far right was full of bizarre conspiracy theories. How is your speculation any different than those who think our government is run by ZOG, a cabal of Jewish leaders pulling all the strings? They are both equally bizarre and inaccurate.
Now, I will concede that those in power have an interest in protecting their own power. And the power of their friends. That is always the case. But to claim that Bush is actually trying to set up a corporation-run United States is, well, paranoia.
And, again, your attacks on Roberts are completely unjustified. I find it quite interesting that you know so much about the man -- for instance, your statement that his life revolves around overturning Roe v. Wade. Did you serve as his law clerk? Are you one of his friends? His father? How do you know so much about him?
Once again, you really undercut your own points when you engage in such naked speculation -- with no facts to support it -- and hyperbole.
er anyday.