I don't know.
Hence the reason so many of us are concerned.
a "compassionate conservative" = liberal in disguise.
More to the point, does she possess better qualifications than anyone else? Maybe so, but it needs showing.
Is this guy kidding?
Since when is he a conservative?
Since the Supreme Court has a well documented history of being manned (for lack of a better term) by non-jurists, I fail to understand why one now has to be a judge to be qualified in knowing the law. It is not an exclusive club to know the law.
I am not defending the pick because obviously there are well-known jurists that could have been chosen, but one has to remember the people that the Republicans are whining over were placed on federal benches and are more effective where they are than if they were nominated for the Supreme Court. These jurist, or Justices will hear more cases around the so-called social issues than will ever get to the Supreme Court.
Harriet Miers doesn't need to be a current judge to know the law. Her only qualification (AFAIK and am concerned) is whether she will apply the constitution to the case before her.
She has come down for the individual when it comes to the right to bear arms saying that that right should not be comprimised under the guise of crime reduction. That is a HUGE statement and a firm belief in the Bill of Rights.
Am I the only one who thinks this way?