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.
Tadams8591, I owe you an apology. I just now read your profile page – which is something I should always do before making a reply. There you aver that of all your priorities, your first is Catholicism. If you check my profile page, you’ll see that my first and overarching identity is Christian. I should have addressed you as my brother in Christ and not simply an intellectual conservative.
Likewise, slowhandluke, I should have noticed that you have been around Free Republic for 6 years and thus have certainly weathered quite a few storms unique to conservatives where they “eat their own” (who could forget Elian?!) I should have addressed you as someone who will stay in the fox hole with me and not run when the enemy is fierce, you disagree with me or the ammunition is lacking.
You are all certainly welcome to your views and I do not expect to persuade you with what I am about to say but I shall make this testimony for the record and then withdraw from the debate with the three of you:
The root of this nation was clearly established in the fertile ground of the Christian faith of its founders - but has been drifting toward atheism by the many USSC decisions which became law despite the legislators who were elected to express the will of the primarily theistic population. This same drifting has occurred in many of the mainstream denominations as they have reinterpreted the Scriptures to accept abominations under the guise of reaching more people with the Gospel.
All we have to do is look at Europe to see what happens when people turn away from God and toward their own imaginings of right and wrong.
More important than anything in this physical realm including this nation and its people is that God’s name be hallowed, that His kingdom come, that His will be done. This is the heart of the Lord’s Prayer. We mean it when we pray it – His will, not ours.
Thus we prayed urgently and earnestly, humbling ourselves, turning away from the evil around us and standing on His promise that if we would do this He would heal this land (2 Ch 7:14).
It was not a faithless prayer. We stood praying, believing that we received the healing (Mark 11:24-25). Without that belief, or if we fail to forgive, our desire for this land would not be granted.
Therefore I praise God for the answer to our prayer – for this President, this administration, all of these conservative judicial appointments including these two last appointments to the Supreme Court.
I do not worry about Harriet Miers. If I had any worry, it would have been a statement of disbelief and all my prayers would be literally, in vain.
Moreover, nothing is beyond His power. If He can make a king out of a shepherd, he can make a judge out of a lawyer.
Harry Blackmun "voted the right way" while Nixon was President; Justice O'Connor "voted the right way" and was FAR more conservative during the first few years after she was appointed,and even David Souter largely "voted the right way" on a number of cases during his first term on the Court while Bush Sr. was still in office.
The President may indeed believe that "in his heart" Harriet Miers is conservative; However, perhaps as some have speculated she has just been telling him what he wants to hear; Further, she is insufficiently qualified (Imagine if President Clinton appointed someone with her background?), and has in no way demonstrated over the course of her legal career that she is indeed a judicial conservative. If anything, her contributions to Al Gore, change of religion, involvement in the ABA instead of the Federalist Society, etc seems to indicate that she is a woman of few firm convictions - making her a HUGE risk to drift to the Left the longer she is on the Court.