She might vote conservative on the Court - but the Supreme Court isn't about voting your feelings. It involves thinking about constitutional law and applying it impartially.
I don't care squat about her being 'born again' - so am I, and I have no business on the Supreme Court.
We need a very intelligent person, well versed in the law, who can write opinions that will resonate for decades...not a nice woman who hasn't expressed any noticable views on anything by age 60.
Why is it that no one seems to be concerned-even the slightest bit-that this woman has spent sixty years of her life not accumulating a written or oral record by which you could discern her political or judicial philosophy?
I have friends in their twenties whose political viewpoints are immediately identifiable.
Doesn't this disturb any of the Miers supporters, just the least bit?
Doesn't it raise some qualms about her nomination?
One of the things that President Bush has said about why he chose her, was that he believes, no doubt, that she will be faithful to be a strict Constitutionalist. Just because she is a born-again Christian doesn't mean she is going to vote on her emotional feelings. To even suggest that is, IMHO, is a terrible insult that she does not deserve and certainly has not earned.
>I don't care squat about her being 'born again' - so am I, and I have no business on the Supreme Court. <
Assuming you are you might want to rephrase that statement.
Mr Rogers ...none of the justices write opinions. Their law clerks, who came out of the Ivy League do.