Greetings to all. David was nice enough to permit me to guest-blog for a bit over here. In my day-job, I'm an editorial writer for a fine New York newspaper that shall remain nameless.

In my"day-blog", I can be found over here at a little place called RAGGED THOTS, where I might be found ruminating"on politics, race, pop culture, sports, comic books & various other sundry temptations of the human condition." For more, see here.

As a further introduction, please check out the copy of my pre-election conscientious objector essay from a year ago on why I couldn't vote for Bush's re-election. In light of recent developments, I'm happy to say that it pretty much holds up. Qualms over civil liberties? spending? and the administration's inability to hold officials accountable for screw-ups? Yep, yep and yep.

Indeed, the"lack of accountability" aspect is a big problem. I am frankly less concerned about how a Justice Harriet Miers would rule on so-called"social issues." Wwhat gives me shudders is the now- preferred pro-Miers talking point is that she will essentially be a rubber-stamp for the executive branch.

How else should we read this characterization by RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman in a conference call with GOP-leaning bloggers?"Judicial activism is interfering with the GWOT by 'micromanaging' decisions. Miers will be solid on executive prerogative." (Admittedly, this is Steven Bainbridge's live-blogging of Mehlman's comments, but I have no reason to believe that they are being mischaracterized.)

Indoctrinating the"principles" of the GWOT onto the Supreme Court. Wonderful.

While we're on that topic -- this would be a good question to ask Miers in a possible confirmation hearing:"Miss Miers, do you believe the Court should"defer" to executive prerogative or -- in the words of now-Chief Justice Roberts -- do you believe that the Supreme Court should be like an 'umpire' and not play favorites?"

Everybody should pay attention to whatever her answer may be.