There really is nothing Miers can do at the hearing that compensates for her lack of a clear strict constructionist record. It is not enough to claim that one is a strict constructionist. One must have proof. That's the problem. There is no proof-- if there was proof, it would be evident all over FR and the rest of the Internet well before now, if it wasn't already released by the WH to save us all this debate. Read inquest's recent postings. The conclusion is that Miers is a career lawyer and otherwise undistinguished as a strict constructionist in constitutional law. I have no doubt she is a fine corporate lawyer. That's not what I voted for in the 2004 presidential election. I voted for someone who promised strict constructionist appointees to the judiciary, and most importantly, to the Supreme Court. It's black and white, and Miers fails the test very miserably. She can say anything she want and she will probably be good at saying nothing of substance at the hearings, since that is the safest bet to gaining Senate approval. That would leave her free to do the crab dance, scuttling left once she is sitting on the bench. I don't want that, and I am just voicing my opinion. There's nothing juvenile about it, it's my perogative as a citizen and as a guest at FR. If you or anyone else can't handle it, that's not my problem.
The Miers nomination has the hallmarks of an affirmative action nomination. Wake up! She helped found a women's studies program at SMU, for crying out loud! No sale here.
Harriet Miers-- withdraw your nomination. NOW!!!
I have. He's as stupid as they come. if you agree with him then you're just as .......