The question we derserve to ask is not how do we know that her loyalty is more to Bush than to Originalism. But rather, where's the proof that she's not going to be a judicial activist?
Faith on this issue is NOT enough. Not anymore.
You start from the postion of assuming an activist, and become convinced that he or she would be an appropriate Justice.
Reagan said, "trust, but verify." We are at the verify point now.
She has stated she believes in a literal interpretation of the Constution.
Any sitting appeals court judge who had demonstrated such with votes would get filibustered by the Dems - while the RINOs in the Gang of 14 would not help invoke the nuclear option.
I'd love to seek JRB nominated and confirmed myself. But she'd never get through.
As long as we have 7 RINOs in the GOP Senate majority, them's the rules.
[[Reagan said, "trust, but verify." We are at the verify point now.]]
Frank, I think the key to your observation would come down to definition of verify. Does that mean attack ? By all means verify, but do it in a reasoned manner. Some of the opposition to Miers starts from distrust, not trust, which almost makes that quote irrelevant. Citing Reagan, who I think is one of our greatest presidents, on Justices when he gave us O'Connor and the internationalist Kennedy, only reveals that these 'papered' nominees are as risky and unknown.