Replies

Am I wrong? Are we comfortable with a process where the nominee is asked how they will vote, and if they say 'for your position' the senator will give them a yea vote, but if they say "i won't answer" the senator then says if she doesn't come up with a better answer he'll vote no?

No, you are not wrong.

But by same token I'm disturbed by people citing she is supposedly a "pro-Life" Christian, and so, will overturn R v W and the like as reason to nominate her.

I'm a pro-Life Christian but that should not be the center of this discussion at either end. As Supreme Court Justice her allegiance is to the Constitution. Not to Bush and not to personal beliefs. So her thoughts of the Constitution and the process the Founders went through to craft it means far more to me than whether she is a "yes" or "no" vote for causes I care for. I want the proper verdict because it's constitutionally correct, I don't want a Ginsburg activist. Even if for my side, though we have no real proof it would be for our side either.

I feel EXACTLY the same way. Those making it about one issue (abortion) are no better than the opposites on the left. For Bush and Rove to think that if they trot out Dobson's approval that everyone will fall in line behind Miers is condescending... imho.

But by same token I'm disturbed by people citing she is supposedly a "pro-Life" Christian, and so, will overturn R v W and the like as reason to nominate her.

Bush and his 'zoids are playing a double-dealing game. On the one hand, they're putting out the "word" that Miers is pro-life and will be a reliable vote against Roe. On the other hand, they're defending her refusal to answer questions about it. Brownback called their bluff. Good for him!