[Allen H]

You're welcome. Thanks yourself. In the end, that's really what it comes down to. The man said he would only put in conservative strict constructionist people to be Judges on all levels, that would uphold the Constitution and what it REALLY SAYS, and not allow the court to be used as an auxillury legislative branch for out of power liberals. I firmly believe that Bush is a genuine man of God and a firm conservative with real Christian ideals. So trust and faith is what's needed now. Either we'll all be very pleased and exicted that there is a new firmly conservative majority on the Supreme Court, or we'll be betrayed by Bush on the most important issue besides terrorism, and Miers will be another suiter, legislating from the bench not upholding the specific intent and clear language of the Constitution. The latter defies logic, and the past five years of judicial appointments Bush has made. I choose to be an optimist and believe that Miers takes her faith seriously and will be a conservative Justice. I can't remember who it was this week, but I heard that before the nomination was made public, she made a call to a close friend, I think it was her Pastor, and asked them to be praying for her, but she couldn't say why. Liberals just don't do that. Most "moderates" don't even do that. That's the kind of thing that conservatives who really take their beliefs and conservative ideology do when they are being considered for something like that. There is a way unto man that seems right, but to God, its way is the path unto destruction. That is the way of the world that you do all yourself, lean only on your own understanding, and you can do anything you want with no help from some god or anyone else. To me, Harriet Miers just doesn't seem to be that kind of person. I find that encouraging, and I'll at least give Bush the benefit of the doubt, and give Miers her first session as a Justice to prove him right or wrong. If she proves to be a liberal, then I'll be the first to complain about being had once again. But until she does that, I will have faith and give her the benefit of the doubt and pray that she will be strong in her conservative convictions and that she will adjudicate that way. If more conservatives would deal with this issue in that way, the conservative majority would be stronger, and that would allow more energy to be spent on helping fight to defend Tom DeLay, the backbone of conservativism in the Housee, which IS HAPPENING, instead of wasting so much energy attacking Miers as not being conservative and elitist enough and Bush for not nominating a firebrand, putting up Miers who could be liberal which HASN'T HAPPENED. I choose to focus on what is and what most likely will be and not what might be in the worst case scenario. There will be plenty of time to be po'd if she is a lib. No need to be po'd without the benefit of real facts to substantiate it the next month or two until she is on the court and shows one way or the other what kind of Justice she will be.

[Bigun]

I'm with on this matter but it would be most helpful to my tired old eyes if you could insert a < p > here and there to break those posts up into readable paragraphs.

[SerpentDove]

A friendly word of advice, not pertaining to the content of your posts: if you use paragraphs, it is MUCH easier to read.

Just a suggestion.

SD

[eleni121]

"The man said he would only put in conservative strict constructionist people to be Judges on all levels, that would uphold the Constitution and what it REALLY SAYS, and not allow the court to be used as an auxillury legislative branch for out of power liberals"

ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

Amen!

[seadevil]

I posted this on another thread...but I'll post it here, too.

It seems that there are two central camps:

1. Those who see this as the best chance to engage the enemy head on, draw copious quantities of blood and leave the enemy utterly vanquished. Or, willingly die on the battlefield content that they've sacrificed themselves for a noble cause.

2. Those who see the war as a war and are not yet ready to define it in the terms of a single, bloody battle; regardless of the momentary satisfaction of bloodlust it may bring.

The scope and extent of the arguments of generals rarely are shared with battalion commanders, platoon leaders, sergeants and corporals. Yet, when the generals decide, the rest of them must go forward. Front line grunts may disagree with the choice made, but forward they go.

Active debate between the blood spillers and the decision makers is a healthy thing, in the main. However, there is always a small, quite vocal at times, minority - both generals and corporals - for whom the immediate battle both defines the war and determines its outcome; usually due to the inability to shift from the narrow focus of the task at hand to the overall stratgey required to triumph in the end; for a variety of reasons not all of which either are explainable nor are logically evident.

The logical conclusion in this instance seems to be to maintain the ability to constructively and realistically criticize the process by which this decision was made. However, any specific, personal criticisms of the nominee's abilities, capabilities and probable future performance cannot logically be done until more insight is gained; which will only occur during the hearing process. Only then, will it be possible to render a cogent, logical decision; unless of course, one is in the habit of making such decisions from a foundation of emotion rather than logic.

Here's another interesting variable to throw into the argument. I wonder how many of the senators who may vote "No" on this nominee, yet who voted "Yes" for Ginsburg (and also, those senators' supporters who continue to vote for them in election after election and are FR posters) - knowing that they fundamentally disagreed with her ideology, her beliefs and her general world-view - will be able to logically justify that "No" vote if this nominee's positions more closely mirror theirs.

[spunkets]

"The man said he would only put in conservative strict constructionist people to be Judges on all levels"

So? He signed the campaign finance reform bill. That indicates he wouldn't know a strict constructionist if it bit him in the ass. His appointments are made according to how they conform to his vision, not the Constitution's.

BTW, <p>, creates paragraph breaks.