Rove??? Rove???? Are you on vacation from DU? Why would you expect a WHC to provide ammunition to Moveon.org and the ACLU for a fishing expedition in one of their paranoid smear fantasies??
Maybe she was too busy detailing her judicial philosophy to the President. You know.....that talk we're supposed to be so trusting about that never covered minor issues like abortion. They must have gotten bogged down in a discussion of substantive versus procedural implications of the commerce clause. Oh, since we know her judicial interpretation, how does she fall on this issue? It's a really important one and is something that will impact a lot of lives.
????
Everyone who knows her seems to be pretty damn comfortable about her position on abortion. You are flailing now. My kids have never asked my position on abortion either, but I'm sure they know what it is. If you are looking for an elected candidate to make promises that she will deliver on specific issues, I'd say Miers is as close as you are going to get. She's probably the near equivalent of sending Dubya to the SC. But you SHOULDN'T be looking for that. From what I've read (she hasn't spoken for herself yet), she's an Originalist. Like Bork.
IF you are really a conservative, you have ZERO to complain about in this nomination.
As to the Rove matter, the President's counsel is required by law to respond to requests regarding legal matters. There is now a dispute as to whether Karl Rove, during the 2004 election, obeyed federal law (5-USC-7321 - in case you're from Rio Linda, that refers to the United States Code)and properly allocated the time he spent in the White House on political activity, the resources he spent in the White House on political activity from his taxpayer funded role as special assistant to the President, performing duties that are well defined. She has failed to respond to requests for this information as she is required to do by statute. This is important since, we're being told to trust the President and that Harriet Miers is competent for the Supreme Court because she is so good at what she does legally for the President. However, she seems to be incompetent in this regard. Also, today, we see that Ms. Miers employed a rather expansive interpretation of the 12th Amendment in trying to defend a lawsuit against the Vice-President challenging his Wyoming residency. Now, on the one hand we're told that her lack of experience in judicial doesn't matter because she believes the Constitution should be interpreted as written. Yet here, she's trying to broaden the original intent. The White House defense is, yet again, that she's just working for a client and so, like with John Roberts we can't discern judicial philosophy from that. Well, this is what you get with a stealth candidate. The White House, sadly, seems to want it both ways.....they cite her work as White House counsel as a qualification to prove that she's capable of interpreting the Constitution, but then says we can't use it because it doesn't tell us anything about how she's interpret the Constitution. Now, to anyone but a Bushbot, that would seem a bit of a contradiction.
Yet again, you offer third hand testimony to reassure us that Harriet Miers is qualified. I've actually heard that the people who know her are actually anywhere from evenly divided for and against or somewhat against her. But, what I've been saying over and over and over again to you is that such testimony is worthless. It is biased either for or against her. We can go back and cite just as much testimony swearing that O'Connor and Souter and Kennedy were rock-ribbed conservatives.
I am not looking for an elected candidate who will promise that she will deliver on specific issues. That seems to be what you're focused on. (And George W. Bush is also not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. He has no experience in interpreting the Constitution and his little catchphrase that he repeats from time to time that he "doesn't believe in legislating from the bench" isn't informative. Not to mention that he's already violated his oath to uphold the Constitution by signing McCain-Feingold into law.) That's why her judicial philosophy is so important. With an originalist philosophy, her political opinions, whether she's conservative or liberal don't matter because that isn't how she would decide cases at law. She would decide cases based on how her record demonstrates that she interprets the Constitution. You state that, from what you've read she's an originalist like Bork. Could you cite some information to support that.....and don't include personal testimonies, since they are worthless in determining a judicial philosophy. And I am hardly the only Conservative that is appalled at the stupidity of this nomination. Perhaps you need to rephrase that to a Bush conservative.....but then, they aren't really conservative, based on his policies for the last 5 years.