Well, I was being facetious and hyperbolic, and you're right, my comments make me look like a liar. But the direct evidence of her judicial philosophy is mighty slim.
Yes, I think she sees the 2nd as an individual right, not a collective right - based on her having owned a handgun and being from TX. Her advocating that the ABA abortion on demand position paper be submitted to entire membership can be spun either way (not enough data to know if she's a "let the people decide" or if she knew the vote was a foregone conclusion either way).
I'm scratching my head as to other points of view I have, based on evidence. Oh yeah, her TX Bar Journal prose is, on balance, advocaing more of a collective approach to government - e.g., "compassionate conservatism", "we can all help" and a bit of elitism (she wrote of lawyers and the legal profession as social bedrock).
Her personal charity and compassion is admirable. I see that reinforcing a risk of big government spending.
The quality of her writing is awful, IMO. Syrupy and as for substance, fence sitting.
I started off with a very open mind and giving her the benefit of the doubt -- I still have an open mind, but the data I have seen is either neutral or negative, to my point of view.
The input of people who have worked with her? They say she is commited to pro-life, but that cannot be stretched into a judicial philosophy.
And yet you still claim to be ignorant. So please, save the "I'm an honest seeker of truth" routine.
Hey - help me out. We're all in this together. I'm no choir boy, that's for sure. But I do try to be intellectually honest. And have some fun, this board and this issue, while serious, is so darn polarized that I succumb to temptation.
Cheers, from the dark side.
Astros or White Sox?
Quite frankly my head is hurting. Just because one thinks that the SC was correct in seeing Griswold as a privacy issue does not mean for one moment I think Miers competent today when I didn't yesterday.
Aha! Caught you again! Several have directly said she believed in judicial restraint and a strict interpretation. So, why do you leave that out (somewhat conveniently...)?