First, you AGAIN miss my point. I didn't say SHE was timid, I said the nomination was, because the nomination is "steath" in nature, instead of "in your face conservative" in nature.
I'll give you "well spoken", but your grade on "responsive" is not so hot.
The play out of her tenacity is mostly speculative. Is she tenaciously attached to the commerce clause as justification for federal intervention? How compa$$ionate is her con$ervati$m with other people's money?
Again, even if her jurisprudence jives with mine, I have valid concerns.
And the whole use of the word "crony" makes me cringe ...
Me too. But it's in the nature of the nomination. She vetted GWB in 1994, looking for dirt as he ran for governor of Texas. He's rewarded her since. The charge is not incredible, and he will eventaully need to address it. An unnecessary distraction, at best. Actual cronysism at worst.
the fact that she is the one who brought all those great conservative Judges to Bush to nominate. That cannot be overstated.
Jurists who espouse constitutional princile exist. The fact that she is a conduit of communication makes her nothing but a conduit of communication.
Given the evidence, I think Miers is a moderate, at best.
That's where I think Miers will be a conservative since she is the one who vetted all the great conservatives that Bush nominated that conservatives think are so great and wish had gotten the nomination. How, if she was good enough to pick those conservatives, and she thought Roberts wasn't conservative enough, is she somehow not good enough herself to be a Justice? That is illogical.
I'd agree she's just a "conduit" like you said, if it wasn't for the fact that her personal life and how she's spent her time off the job are filthy with things that smack of someone very conservatively, both socially and religiously. There's nothing in her personal life that is not consistent with all the conservative social and religious values that the conservative majority of the country believes in also. By all appearances, she would have to betray her own person to be a justice like o'conner or souter. And she'd have to have a brain transplant to be like ginsburg or stevens. There just isn't any evidence that points to her being a less than conservative constructionist Justice, and since Bush has put up ONLY conservative Judges, there is NO example to give that would indicate that Miers is not in that same mold. Especially since he knows her and what she thinks about things and how she believes, unlike Reagan and Bush 41 who did not know kennedy, or o'conner, or souter. Those are all the things I can't get around in all this that make me believe she is a real conservative. Plus all the well known strong conservative and Christian people who have known her personally for many years who put their reputations on the line by backing her and defending her as a strong conservative. I mean, Jay Sekulow, Nathan Hecht, Rev. Falwell, John Cornyn, on and on and on. Those are not stupid people that are easily fooled. All the people defending her actually know her. All the people upset with her nomination, don't know her and few have even ever met her before this. When all the democrats start nailing her to the wall in committee and the moveon.org and people for the Amrican way ads continue to flood the airwaves, will it still be possible to believe she's not a real conservative? now and narwal do not oppose closet libs or milk-toast Republicans like they are opposing Miers.