Replies

But Bush does sometimes seem to play politics with his judicial appointments

The very 1st two. I guess my point is they need to make the case that this is bad idea. So far the argument boils down to "you cannot trust Bush". We guess what, I have no reason to trust them either. Here are just a few things that reassure me. Believe me, I knew this was going to be a huge poop sandwich. I was just as angry the 1st couple of days. However, I am a Conservative because I think, not feel my politics.

Bush knows his father made mistakes. One of those mistakes was Souter who WAS the pick of the Republican Establishment and not known to Bush Sr. I suspect Miers is the Anti-Souter. He picked someone he KNEW would not "evolve" on the court. Would NOT be a "Souter in a Dress". That is just a guess. I have no way to know that, but I have no way to know that she WILL be a "Souter in a dress" either.

In her writings when running for the Dallas City Council in 1989 she told a Gay activist group, that she would NOT support efforts to overturn the Texas Anti-Sodomy law. Considering she told a hard truth to an activist group while running for office is worthy of respect. Most politicians would NOT of told them that. It shows a strength of character to me.

That she is NOT a product of an "elite" school is NOT a flaw. Sorry but I would like to see some balance on the court. Considering the wacko decisions we have seen from this Court the last 5 years, I am not convinced that having no one on the court except those who have have the exact same training and life experiences is a GOOD thing. I am really bothered that so many of the "Conservative Pundits" have adopted and clung to this line. Basically they are telling us the same thing the Left does. "You peasants need one of US to take care of this, you all are too stupid to handle this" Scalia and Pickering both do not share this worry of the critics. I have reason to respect their judgment I have no reason to trust the critics.

I find it reassuring that she refers to the 2nd Amendment as one of our "precision liberties" not to be shredded just because bad people do bad things. That statement gives an view into her Constitutional Philosophy. Sound pretty Strict Constructionist to me. Even Judge Bork, a hero of the Conservative Legal Establishment, felt it was a collective, not personal, right

The tactics of the critics. Sorry but when I watch supposedly Conservative pundits, like the staff of NRO, adopt the attack lines and tactics of the Hysteric Left, I get VERY suspicious. of their motivations. I mean, after being a subscriber for 25 years, I am SERIOUSLY thinking of dumping both National Review and the Wall Street Journal. If I wanted this kind of emotionally hysteric, smear attacks, I would buy my local paper! Their criticism is emotional, not factual. That does not convince me and does raise my hackles.

Finally when it all comes down to it, the burden of proof is on them, the accusers. The President Picked. The Senate Advises and Consents. The critics have jumped up and said "this is a bad idea". They then demand "you must sell us on this" Ah NO, the accusers MUST convince us they know better then the President. This is another of the attack tactics of the Hysteric Left. Make an accusation then demand the accused prove you wrong. Sorry this tactics is wrong, no matter WHO is using it.

Rush is dead right though. As strident as my disagreements with Freepers like say Cbodt, of Huck or GOPwins get, If their candidate of choice wins in 2008, I will be right their fighting JUST as hard for them. We would not be Freepers if there were not fundamental principals that unite us. Just because we disagree on this issue or that issue does NOT mean we are "impoloding". Quite the contrary, it is a sign of our strength.