[Caipirabob]

Definately needs more cowbell...

[Past Your Eyes]

Definitely could learn how to spell a little better.

[beyond the sea]

She has to take off some of that eye liner, or whatever it's called.

I saw pictures of her as a tennis star in college. She was not unattractive. Take off the black crap, Harriet! ......... and get rid of the crazy bangs.

[martin_fierro]

LOL

[Prophet in the wilderness]

I guess what most of the base is saying is ?
We want more evidence that she will be a reliable conservative vote on the court, and our misgivings are from the fact that she does not have a solid conservative resume.
All we are saying is ? Harriet ,, please ? please don't let us down like Souter or Kennedy did.

[elli1]

The lady looks a mite feisty. Give 'em hell, Harriet.

[RoadTest]

"Sen. George Allen told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that of the 100 phone calls his office got on the Meirs pick before noon last Monday, only three supported the president's pick. "

"You can't arrive at truth by counting noses" said one philosopher. He's right. 50,000 Frenchmen (or any men) CAN be wrong.

The fact that George W. Bush has ignored or bypassed the usual routes to stardom (Harvard, Yale) tells me his Christian rebirth is real.

[Trust but Verify]

Make that A LOT more cowbell!

[Captain Kirk]

Snow doesn't even address the evidence that Miers supports racial preferences. I guess post-911 conservatives no longer care about such issues.

[Col Freeper]

I am firmly in the camp that says "The Supreme Court should strictly follow the Constitution (i.e., no prenumbras) in making its decisions."

I have read many postings regarding the types (legal-eagle, Harvard type vs non-elite school graduate), experience (jurist vs non-jurist, etc.), character, and on-record positions on issues that SC nominees should have. It has been interesting to read both the "Official Conservative Pundits" opinion articles, as well as the postings of fellow Freepers.

It seems to me that if a you believe the Constitution is clearly enough written that the average person, with average educational background, can understand and apply the intent of the Founders, then that person would be qualified to sit on the SC.

While there can never be any guarantee that a person would not change once placed on the SC, the assessment of their character, life experience and recorded positions provide the only valid clues about their likely approach to applying the Constitution in SC deliberations.

Both the pro and con arguments I have read thus far contain some thought provoking content, and I believe that FR is just the right modern-day "Town Square" for discussing the current nominee and her qualifications to be nominated and approved for the SC.

The selection, and seating of a life-term SC Justice is of such significance to the future of our country, that, as long as the posting rules of the forum are followed, I encourage a lively, fully fleshed-out discussion about the current nominee.

If Ms. Miers' character, life experience and recorded positions will lead to her making decisions based on the content of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders, than she is fully qualified to be a SC Justice.

At this juncture, it appears to me that she is, but I will continue to follow the threads to see if any new information is provided which would change that perception.

I don't accept the idea that only lawyers and/or elite individuals can hold top positions in other parts of the Government, and I don't accept the idea that a SC Justice can't be drawn from non-elite sectors of our society.