[gridlock]

If we bemoan Supreme Court justices deciding cases based on their personal vies about things like abortion and affirmative action, should we be concerned about Harriet Mier's opinion on these issues. Doesn't that mean we just want her to cheat our way, instead of the other way?

I am far more interested in her judicial philosophy. We should look for people who take a limited view of constructionism and let the chips fall where they may.

[BedRock]

But this is exactly against liberal philosophy, in that they are not strict interpreters of the Constitution.

As society changes, so does it's language, thus to liberals, so does the meanings of the words used in the Constitution.

It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is...
It all depends on what the meaning of "speech" is...
It all depends on what the meaning of "bear arms" is...
It all depends on what the meaning of "public use" is...

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

That's right. Her religious beliefs are fine with me. But I fail to see that they automatically transfer into good and responsible jurisprudence. Playing up her beliefs might do well to energize a certain portion of the GOP base to get behind her, but it's also going to energize the other side. And I'm not convinced that we want to go there with this nomination.