I forced myself through it but, really, despite the sheer volume of your response, there is nothing new and you are merely rehashing what you have already said on the issue. I am not going to restate what I have said because I don't consider that productive.
What it all boils down to is this: you believe "trust me" is good enough for a SCOTUS nominee and I don't. Ten thousand more words of hissyfit going over the same points isn't going to change that fundamental disagreement.
You have your opinion. I have mine. Lets leave it there.
Arghhhhh!!! No, you still don’t get what I’m saying. Geeze. I am NOT saying "Just trust W". That’s become the talking point of the anti-Miers camp they toss at those not against her. I’m really sick of that. Not fussing at you, I’m just sick of that after the past week. :) I’m not saying "just trust him". I’m not saying that because I have all the same reservations that you do about her. The difference is that I have faith that because he knows her and has known her for over a decade and no one has worked with him as closely as she has, that he knows what her judicial philosophy is, because he knows her personal beliefs, he knows her professional beliefs, he knows how she interprets the Constitution, and knows that after 30 years, she knows it front and back, and that, along with all the other very well known thoughtful conservative people who are the bedrock of the conservative movement, who have known her personally and professionally for many many years have put their reputations on the line saying the same about her as Bush has said. Were she not a dedicated Christian for so many years, and were it not established that Bush is the same for many years, I would be much more nervous and would sound much like the anti-Miers camp. However, because of all this above, (and THIS is what I am saying FIRST AND FOREMOST ABOVE ALL ELSE in this issue) I am withholding judgment one way or the other until I hear her speak and see what she has to say, because at this point, there is NOTHING to substantiate a position against her nomination. Supposition and speculation from people who never met and don’t know a person is NOT a credible reason to oppose their nomination to the Supreme Court. It smacks of ego and elitism among many, and arrogance and self-importance among others because they didn’t get what they want. That’s what I’ve heard from most of the people on the news and radio, and some here, against Miers. And that is just an irrational emotion driven response without the benefit of facts to support it.
It would be much better for all concerned, especially the conservative movement as a whole, if people would wait to actually have something she’s said or done recently that gives cause to have concern as to what kind of philosophy she would bring to the SCOTUS. So far, that is absent, so I wait to have something real and tangible to oppose. WHY is that SOOO hard to understand? I am neither pro-Miers or anti-Meirs. There is not enough out there to be either way, though weighing the facts that are out there thus far, there is more reason to be encouraged than discouraged as to what kind of Justice she’d be based on what we know of her so far. Bush’s 1000% batting average on judges the past five years, and Miers position as the chief person who vetted all those judges before they went to Bush, are two VERY big reasons to be encouraged instead of discouraged. It’s not being against her or opposing Bush that bugs me about this argument. It’s the fact that so many people have rushed where angles fear to tread with no facts and less personal knowledge of the woman, prepared to burn her to the ground because of who she isn’t that troubles me so much. That kind of rash impulsive rush to react instead of analyze and be sure to take the correct course of action is what I expect from liberals who act based on their emotions not factual analysis. Would it have been so hard for the anti-Miers people to swallow their pride for a few weeks, grumble under their breath, and hold their fire until they hear from her and see the hearings before wanting to burn her at the stake? I mean, it’s going to be pretty embarrassing for you guys, ALL the anti-Miers folks, in six months after she has an established record of rulings deep into the current session, and it shows she votes with Scalia and Thomas most if not all the time, much more than o’conner did in either case. That IS the ultimate goal here that has been lost in all this vitriol. WHO takes that position is NOT the important thing. HOW they vote IS the important thing. That has been greatly ignored and overlooked because of the fervor to be so upset over who she isn’t. I don’t get how this can’t be understood by so many. Patience! Not trust. Patience. And prayer. Bush’s track record on judges doesn’t hurt either.