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.
I too am a strong Christian conservative from Texas, about her age."
No bias there.
What on her resume indicates she's "conservative?" Just because she is a Christian does not mean she is a conservative.
Most conservative attorneys belong to the Federalist Society. Not only did Harriet NOT belong, but she also didn't get along with the Federalists with whom she worked. Furthermore, Harriet is a member of, and has been very active in, the more Liberal ABA. She has been given the Sandra Day O'Connor award for excellence.
Moreover, she did not join the Republican Party until 1990, around the same time she returned to active Christian worship.
At this point in time, I see absolutely NOTHING in her background to indicate she is conservative.
Miers attitudes may be on the right side.
That doesn't mean she can write an opinion that logically supports those attitudes in any given case, nor that she can extend that logic to other cases not directly related to the 3 positions you state.
I was hoping for a candidate who believes in original intent, regardless of what ever religious beliefs might be held. But further, I was hoping for a candidate who could run rings around the Souters, Breyers, and Ginsburgs and make their dissents appear foolish.
The best I can hope for Ms Mier is that she promise the Senate that she will always vote with either Scalia or Thomas. The last thing this country needs is a Conservative Christian letting it be known, or even having it assumed that she voted one way because she believed that it was 'the right thing to do', or she consulted here 'WWJD' bracelet.
Maybe she'll vote the right way every time, but if she can't back it up with a logical argument, or does so with an extra-constitutional argument (e.g. looking at Swaziland precedent), she'll be just another road mark on the way to judicial tyranny.