For the record, I have not contended either way whether she is a strict Constructionist or not.
My objection is centered more along the lines I feel there were better qualified candidates.
Note- I am not refering to ideology. I am refering to experience and her intellectual contributions to the Courts. In this sense, I feel she is only adequate and that is a disappointment.
As far as I know the only constitutional requirement to be a Supreme Court Justice is to be nominated by the President with the advise and consent of the Senate. She passed the first hurdle today.
Just note that when Nixon nominated Rhenquist, he was viewed by many as not being well qualified either. I'd more concerned, if Bush nominated a seventh grade sceince to teacher to head NASA but being an appeals court judge is not rocket science.
I agree pretty much. There are almost always better qualified people for any job. I would have rather Bush nominated Luddig or Pryor or someone that's a proven hard line conservative, but Miers could well be someone like them who's just not known. What bothers me is this knee jerk atmosphere here. I will not discount the fact that she's been in the administration for years, and Bush has known her for a very long time. And there are a lot of proven conservatives who have come out to bat for her today. Until I hear something that indicates she has liberal tendencies, I can't oppose her with a clear conscience. I base opinions on what I know, not what I think. And fear is a terrible place from which to base an opinion.