[mrsmith]

I don't understand the negative reaction to that speech- from reasonable people.

I dare say every Freeper would agree with the theme of her speech that it is better for legislatures to solve problems than for the courts to.

[Torie]

The point Miers is making, is that if you don't want the courts doing what is needed and necessary to make America a better (read more liberal) place, then darn it, pass the liberal legislation yourself. Don't let injustice jest fester darn it, hiding behind the robes, just do it! I think Miers is a rather superficial go with the flow type, an insecure type, who tries to please her constituency in a rather fawning way, whereever she finds herself. That is my psycobabble analysis for the day.

Ponnuru gives a better response to your question than I can.

JUDICIAL USURPATION AND LEGISLATIVE ABDICATION [Ramesh Ponnuru]

Rich: I think you're giving Miers too much credit here, and the Post too little. There are a lot of ways to connect the themes of judicial usurpation and legislative abdication. You could adopt the argument that legislatures are to blame for not reining in the courts (an argument which I think is generally sound). You could go on to note that legislatures have not sought to reclaim their powers because they are perfectly happy to see the courts get the blame for tough decisions.

That's not the argument Miers makes. The argument she makes is that the courts can't be blamed when they are forced to step in to resolve problems that elected officials have failed to resolve (e.g., the problems of school funding and low-income housing siting). That is a very standard argument, usually associated with liberals. Eliot Spitzer, for example, often argues that it is necessary to pursue anti-gun policies through the courts because legislatures have failed to act. But it's hard to see how the courts are to distinguish between a) a legislative "failure to act," b) a legislative decision that there is no problem demanding solution, or c) a legislative decision that solving any problem would create new and greater problems. Any act of judicial usurpation can be described as a reluctant response to the legislature's failure to enact what the judges wanted them to enact.

Miers may have modified or reversed her views since then, but the speech strikes me as an example of the kind of mindset that one does not want in a Supreme Court justice.