Replies

Squandered hey? And you already know how Harriet Meirs is going to vote?

It's not about how she is going to vote (if confirmed). I imagine she would vote just fine.
The reason it is squandered is because Bush had a chance to unite all factions of his base with the selection of someone like Janice Rogers Brown, as he did with John Roberts. Instead he chose to reward only the religious conservatives in his broad coalition. Just look at the people who endorsed her, the people who seem to have had the inside scoop before her nomination was even announced. People like James Dobson and Jay Sekulow. Bush was so flanked by attacks from everyone else that they had to let it slip that she was an evangelical churchlady and it was Jesus who brought her to the Republican party. She was so assaulted by conservatives that the Bush team had to reveal their true reasons for selecting her, reasons they hoped could remain obscured. That not only hurts her chances of confirmation, but it seriously damages her credibility and makes the broader conservative movement look foolish.

As far as strict votes go, she will probably be in the Scalia-Thomas camp. But she won't be an intellectual heavy-weight advancing the Constitutional conservative judicial philosophy in her opinions as Roberts will be. She'll only do damage to the movement by writing what will be labeled "faith-based opinions", deservingly or not. She will be far more a Thomas than a Scalia.

I'm one of those "religious conservatives" you are speaking of, and I agree with you fully. I am not pleased with this choice for the same reason you express in your post. One good thing though, she probably will vote with Thomas and Scalia as you said, and for that reason I can have some peace of mind about this selection the President made.

It's not about how she is going to vote (if confirmed). I imagine she would vote just fine.

If you believe that then we don't really have a disagreement. To me that's all that matters. The rest is desert and perhaps we weren't ready for, or couldn't afford desert at this point in time.

Instead he chose to reward only the religious conservatives in his broad coalition. Just look at the people who endorsed her..

Perhaps that is why he trusts her character so much though. He made some strong statements about her, that she won't drift Left, that she won't invent rights, that she is an originalist. How does he know that?
My only conclusion is that he recognizes and trusts her character.
If Bush is right about these things then we all should be more than happy. "Mission Accomplished!" according to my way of looking at it.

As far as strict votes go, she will probably be in the Scalia-Thomas camp. But she won't be an intellectual heavy-weight advancing the Constitutional conservative judicial philosophy in her opinions as Roberts will be. She'll only do damage to the movement by writing what will be labeled "faith-based opinions", deservingly or not. She will be far more a Thomas than a Scalia.

Isn't it a bit much to assume because one has faith that they must not be a conservative but for only that reason or that they can render a decision that is not faith based but is strictly based on a conservative originalist view of the constitution? I don't think you know how her opinions may be written or received for that matter so this is over-reaching. How about a few facts or at least a reasoned argument instead of unfounded opinion? I'm not sure about this nomination either but the more I hear and read about this person the more comfortable I am getting that the President meant what he said that he ran on the promise of appointing justices that would not legislate from the bench and would be faithful to the constitution. I'm waiting to see and hear more facts, and to hear Ms. Miers respond to the questions in the hearings. I cannot fault her for having faith in her God, nor can I fault Bush for nominating someone who does especially when it will give the libdims absolute convulsions trying to undo the trap they put themselves in.