Replies

The hardliners probably won't give this article a first or second thought, but hopefully those with more faith in God and our President will.

I gave the article all the thought it deserved... which isn't much, since it was basically: "Support Miers, because she believes in God, she's untarnished by scandal, her law school wasn't that bad, and she's a woman." If that were enough to win my support for a nominee, well, I'd be a Democrat.

Whether one has faith in God or not, God didn't pick Miers, Bush did. And Bush isn't God, he's a politician. You shouldn't "have faith" in him to the extent that you unhesitatingly decide that a choice is good simply because it was his.

I don't think it's a "rationalization", but it definitely is "rational".

See above. The arguments made by this article: she believes in God, she doesn't have any scandals that we know of, and she's female should not suffice to convince a "rational" person that "the Court will be in the best hands possible".

"Let's give her a chance. Bombs away." Excellent choice in phrase, to say the least.

Yeah. In this case, "give her a chance" is synonymous with "jump off a cliff". There's no going back; if "giving her a chance" turns out to be the wrong move, we're stuck with the consequences for decades.

The elites are insisting bench time is a requirement!

Thanks for the straw man. I've stated my reasons for opposition, and her lack of experience on the bench is not one of them.

We'll put you down as yet another pretend writer who the president didn't consult before he nominated somebody.

Nope, he didn't consult with me. But he did make me a promise. And I am not convinced he has kept it. And yes, I do tend to be a little bitter when people break their promises to me.

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.

Yes, which once again brings us back to the main argument used by the Miers supporters: "Trust Bush!"

Bush nominated someone who #1 passes the pro-life litmus test many on FR seem to hold dear

Not me. I'd dearly love to see Roe tossed in the garbage where it belongs, but I'm much less interested in having a Justice who will vote to overturn it than I am in why she would vote to overturn it. If she would overturn Roe just because she opposes abortion, that's bad. Roe should be overturned because it's extraconstitutional, not because abortion is bad. My litmus test isn't "pro-life", but "pro-Constitution", and the two are not necessarily equivalent.

and #2 can be confirmed for reasons mentioned here and on other threads.

Lots of people could be confirmed. With 55 GOP Senators, there are probably a lot more potential nominees that would be confirmed than would be rejected. Whether she can be confirmed or not has no bearing on whether Miers would make a good Justice or not... and if she wouldn't, easy confirmation is a negative.

Anytime a group of lawyers, "legal experts", liberals and politicians come out against something, don't you begin to wonder if perhaps that "something" may be a good thing? LOL

What a great argument. I think I'll use that to claim that since most lawyers, legal experts, liberals, and politicians are against random beatings, they must be a good thing. LOL.

trust the preisdent....be a good little bot how dare you question the man, you ingrate fringer you

Very well said.

Why cant we get another candidate like Roberts through...dont we have any others like him?

Yup, we have lots, and that's why I'm so ticked. Whether Miers is good or not is to some degree beside the point... there were potential nominees who are indisputably awesome, who we wouldn't have to wonder about. Again, my personal favorite is Alex Kozinski, who so richly deserves a seat on the Supreme Court it's not even funny. I wish Bush had left Roberts in O'Connor's seat; Kozinski would have made an incredible Chief.