I'll be brief, which is hard for me. I don't equate salvation with changing political parties -- I have evangelical democrat buddies, even today. I suppose some have confused her spiritual conversion with her conversion to republican ideals, and others seem to believe she is still a democrat. Some say that being a democrat is itself a crime, especially if you were still one at 48 (like it's ok to be a democrat when you are young and foolish, but if you were old and a democrat there is no hope for you).
I'm not going to argue with people who say she's a democrat. I don't believe they are right, but I don't see the point (actually I'm probably dropping out of the argument again, it's too tiring). Fact is, if she is a strict constructionist, it doesn't matter what her party is except to those who believe only people with mental deficiencies could be democrats. I don't subscribe to that theory, although i wonder sometimes. It is however why we as a nation are so terribly divided.
In a few days I may post why I can't wrap my hands around the possibility of a "good" outcome involving Bush withdrawing the nomination under pressure from his base. But not now.
But that's the whole "if" that's under discussion here. Her own assurance that she's a strict constructionist is meaningless without any kind of context. If she can't identify a single decision of the court that doesn't fall within the parameters of "strict constructionism", then it's no more indicative of how she'd vote to rule, than a vague assurance that she'll be "faithful to the Constitution" (as if there's a single judge who doesn't claim to be).
The problem of her having been a Democrat, or more pertinently, of her having no record indicating that she's a conservative thinker, is that it doesn't bode well for her being a faithful constitutionalist. Liberals and even centrists find the Constitution as it stands rather unsettling, because it doesn't let them do what they want politically. Although it's perfectly possible in theory that a liberal might do right by the Constitution despite having to constantly rule against her views of right and wrong, this has not been borne out by experience. The only justices who've consistently upheld the document are conservatives, not just because they happen to agree with it, but also because they're motivated more by critical thinking than by feelings. (there's a great quote I found while surfing online, that I put at the bottom of my profile page; it's applicable here)
In a few days I may post why I can't wrap my hands around the possibility of a "good" outcome involving Bush withdrawing the nomination under pressure from his base.
A good enough outcome for me would be the nomination of someone like Janice Rogers Brown. If Republicans fight intelligently, and force the Democrats to bring some of those "unexamined prejudices" that Burnham mentioned out into the open, they could really do some damage to the Dems.