I'd rather win. I support President Bush and his choice of Harriet Miers!
So we didn't fight, and got Ginsburg. And we didn't fight hard enough for Bork, and got Kennedy. Reagan didn't pay attention and we got O'Connor. Wins like that we can do without.
I'm waiting for somebody to trot out Roman Hruska's (R-Nebr) defense of Carswell:
"Even if he was mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there."I'd hoped it had been settled back in 1970 that the Supreme Court should indeed prefer 'stuff like that there'.
I do not subscribe to the notion that Miers is a mediocre nominee. Quite to the contrary, I see her as a very strong Christian conservative from Texas. The court has not had someone like this nigh onto a hundred years.
I too am a strong Christian conservative from Texas, about her age. Further, her profile tells me that she is pro-life, pro the right to free exercise of religion, pro the individual right to keep and bear arms, pro individual property right.
That is 180 degrees reversal of the secular humanist and socialistic trend of the court for decades which has created a hostility towards the unborn and hostility towards public religious expressions and the right to bear arms grossly limited and right to property as if a grant or lease from the government. All of these were new law caused by treating the Constitution as a living document.
You may consider her a legal lightweight – and frankly it wouldn’t matter to me if she were a dog-catcher with the same profile. On the Supreme Court, her vote carries just as much weight as Ginsberg or Souter – and as the swing vote, even more so.