Replies

The main question is: HOW WILL SHE VOTE? Bottom line.

No, that's not the main question. The Supreme Court is not the US Senate. The main question is: HOW DID SHE ARRIVE AT THAT VOTE? Bottom line.

Tell me, years from now ... if she votes the way you want, I want, and 90% of Freepers want, will you be posting here and saying "yes, that's good, but she still wasn't qualified!" ?????

I would, yes. That would be all the more compounded if she didn't come to these votes through strict constructionist jurisprudence. If she starts citing Biblical law as her foundation, she will be just as much of an embarrassment as the justices who cite foreign law. If she doesn't come to Constitutionally solid and reasoned decisions, she could potentially do serious damage to both Conservativism and President Bush's legacy.

There is absolutely no fear of this with Chief Justice Roberts. The same cannot be said of Harriet Miers at this point, especially since it is beginning to appear that Bush chose her not for her brilliant legal mind, but for her deep religious convictions.

"No, that's not the main question. The Supreme Court is not the US Senate. The main question is: HOW DID SHE ARRIVE AT THAT VOTE? Bottom line"

Good god man have you ever read what Thomas writes?

I agree 100% with what his final rulings have been but man he gets there in a way that is goofy to the normal idiot like me.

It's probably his staff but man his background on his opinions can seem way out there and not what normal folks would look at to come to a ruling.

He cites speeches pre-1776 and includes information that have zero application to the constitution but was someones opinion back in 1789 !