I don't know how you can say she brings nothing when you don't know her. It's not important for you to know her. It's important for the President to know her since he's making the appointment.
Of course, if you don't trust him, then I can see why you'd not be satisfied with his appointment. At this point, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's really kind of pointless to do anything else since the only thing we can do is vent anyway.
What a wonderful thing to do to our President while our sons and daughters are fighting for their lives.
How helpful when we need the Patriot Act reaffirmed.
How helpful when we need the tax cuts made permanent.
How helpful when we need to deal with social security.
Of course, if you don't trust him, then I can see why you'd not be satisfied with his appointment. At this point, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's really kind of pointless to do anything else since the only thing we can do is vent anyway.
This is exactly what the Miers nomination boils down to for those of us on the right. I am disheartened at the vicious attacks Freepers have thrown at each other because of this nomination. Debate and dissent is good, and may it never be stifled, but the vitriol has got to stop on both sides.
My position on Miers is currently "need more info." I was disappointed President Bush didn't select someone like Brown or Owens. From what I've read on Miers so far though, it seems she may turn out ok, and I definitely feel better about her.
I keep hearing the objection of "'May turn out ok' isn't good enough! Where's the paper trail?!" I understand because we have been burnt before, but how dependable is a paper trail, truly? O'Connor had a paper trail. Kennedy had a paper trail. Souter had a paper trail. What good did it do in the end?
A nominee can write the most sensible opinions around before getting to the SCOTUS, but does that guarantee anything? Sad to say, but even spelling out their thoughts in a Senate hearing has absolutely no bearing at all on what a person does once they're seated. The most anyone, other than the nominee himself, can do is infer how that person will rule.
I would've liked a paper trail. I would feel so much better about this nominee if there were one, but that's really all it can do. In the end, it all comes back to trusting the President we elected to do his best to fulfill his duty and nominate justices that will uphold the Constitution as the law of this land. I think he's done a good job of that up to this point.
Of course, you can always contact your senators and the President and voice your praise or concerns, as is your right as a constituent. There's no denying that the President has lost trust among some, but it doesn't change the fact that the President is the only person in the US with the power to nominate judges to SCOTUS. Do you trust the President on this or not? Your call.
Wrong, it is important for all of us to know her, and then let our Senators know how we feel they should vote, either for or against.
The Constitution doesn't allow the President carte blanche to put whoever he wants on the Supreme Court, rather it requires the Senate to give "advice and consent". They aren't supposed to rubber stamp his, or anyone's, nominees. Rather they are supposed to act in the best interest of their constituents. Not in the best interest of the President or their party.
Again, it is important for all of us to contact our Senators and let them know how we feel.