[Cboldt]

I'm serious though. I think that is exatly what she might be like. Conservative on some things, but not so conservative on others.

I don't think GWB is conservative. =:-O
Radical thought in FR. I'm immune to flames by now.

As for Miers, I think her personal compassion is a quality that she sees properly a function of government too. THere will not be a government welfare program that her heart can turn down. As for social hot-button issues, I honestly have no clue.

What bugs me is that it is impossible to have a principled decision when the object is a cipher. Everybody is guessing, inclusing the Senators. This is not transparent government. Kinda sticks in my craw. Even if she is to the right of me. Lay out her philosophy - clear (and hearings are totally inadequate for that) - then have a principled fight over it.

And when I think about it, my how far we have drifed from original intent. "Should a judge somehow set social policy from the bench" used be an easy question, agreed answer by all. But that is the question we are fighting over. In the dark. Wearing straightjackets.

[Gondring]

And when I think about it, my how far we have drifed from original intent. "Should a judge somehow set social policy from the bench" used be an easy question, agreed answer by all. But that is the question we are fighting over. In the dark. Wearing straightjackets.

BTTT!

[planekT]

This is not transparent government. Kinda sticks in my craw.

I hear you. I feel like the wool is being pulled over our eyes on this one. Not good.

[Gondring]

Ping