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.
Are you referring to his promise to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas? Because neither of them claim to be Originalists. In the case of Scalia himself, I could cite opinions showing that he is not.
is required to do by statute
Well, gosh, why isn't she in jail? *cough*(DUmoonbat)
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
hmmm....how did the courts end up ruling on that case?
Your assessment of Miers's legal activity seems to suggest that you think YOU are on the SC and the only member. The SC backed the most controversial claims in the McCain-Feingold act as constitutional. I don't think Congress should have passed the act, and I don't think having done so the President should have signed it. But my only option is to vote them out of office. I'm not going to make indefensible claims about failing to defend the Constitution.
Your claims about her lack of qualification reminds me of almost IDENTICAL statements by Democrats during the Thomas hearings. Based on history, I don't see how you have a leg to stand on.
I don't have to produce the results of Miers's Originalist DNA test, because it is not me --and certainly not you--that must be satisfied on that matter. Only the President does, on whom the decision is given. It is for you to show that he has been derelict in his selection which your above arguments certainly do not. Based on what I've seen in your paper trail, I doubt the President could have pleased you with any viable or worthwhile nomination other than one that you (lacking information on the candidates background or recently affirmed judicial philosophy) made yourself. It is a relief to me that the President hasn't undermined his decision-making by running back and forth to get in front of ideological loose cannons like yourself.