Redstate

with republican officials....the democrats/liberals don't have a site like that...

that the condescension exists on the part of those who do not support this nomination.  For many, there seems to be the feeling that if you are willing to support a President that you have supported for the past five years then you're some kind of fool.

It also seems odd to blame the President for splintering the party when so many seem to be willing to take this opportunity to bash the President over McCain-Feingold, NCLB, immigration, and so on and so forth.  It seems odd that so many people who ostensibly supported the President before Monday now claim to have not agreed with the agenda he has pursued over the past five years.

I still don't see what's wrong with trust at this stage.  There's no turning back now; the nominee will not be withdrawn or defeated.  Why not give Bush the benefit of the doubt?  Does that preclude anyone from, at some time in the future, withdrawing their trust and actively opposing this nominee?  Of course it doesn't.  

I'm hoping that a lot of people have egg on their face when it turns out that Bush did the exact opposite of picking a Souter - he went with someone that he knows, not relying on bloggers and staffers saying "trust me."

over at dkos, it's a lovefest with elected Democrats, 24 hours a day!

guarantee for each of your top five preferences? Which of them would you 100% trust on Roe?

Daily Kossites have no problem hollaring about anyone who doesn't toe the "progressive" line on every single issue.  Look at how some of them attacked Feingold for voting yea on Roberts.

What is truly aggravating for me is the condescension of some (though definitely not all) who <strike>support</strike&gt oppose the nomination at those of us who <strike>either object to it or are otherwise unhappy with it.</strike&gt are waiting until the hearings to make up our mind.

Otherwise Erick, I share your concerns.

And that is part of my point.  Do you really think you are going to get anything substantive out of the hearings?  Did you with Roberts?  

No, there was nothing substantive out of the hearings.  All of the substance came from the paper trail, which Miers does not have.

If most reports from Senate Judiciary staff are to be believed: Luttig, McConnell, Williams, Clement, Corrigan, and (yes) even Garza all had vote margins that never fell below confirmability.  

While I can't speak for Erick's trust of them on Roe, all at least have more of a record of judicial philosophy than Ms. Miers.

Any of those would have been on my list.  Yes, even Clement who has enough of a trail to get an idea of where she stands on both judicial philosophy and on life.

What was the question again?

How about we wait until we see who she is? You know, hearings, interviews, how about some data to go with that dissatisfaction.

I am sitting on my keyboard until I see some facts.

to the XHTML tags on that previous comment?

To say this nominee can't be defeated is totally incorrect.  This nomination will be won or lost based on the Senate hearings.  If she can't convince people she's constitutionally competent and up to the job, in addition to being the type of jurists conservatives want, she's in trouble.

Further, you're assuming all Dems will vote for her, they won't.  If Bush keeps yappin about her being a Scalia or Thomas and they find out she's pro-life the Democrats will drop her faster than yesterday's garbage.

She'll have to do more than Roberts.  Roberts was allowed to skate on many questions based on his resume, Miers doesn't have the luxury.   If she pulls a Roberts and willing to answer almost nothing she's in trouble.

Only Garza would draw the filibuster, in my estimation.  Whether that is a good or bad thing depends on how you read the tea leaves.

Luttig would have been a fight but not a filibuster.  Williams would be a no-brainer.

We bashed him over that stuff when it happened. It's not like we've been supporting it, and all of a sudden, we're not. It's that we were willing to put up with a lot of crap, but this is the final straw.

You speak for me on this.  I'm tired of being called an elitist by Hugh Hewitt.  I went to the University of Louisville for God's sake.  What elitist about that?

By the way, Go Cards!

It is a real possibility that the nomination is withdrawn by the end of the weekend.  She may, "on her own", chose to spare Bush the continuing damage to his reputation, and take the issue off the table.  She, and the Bush team, may also want to avoid what could be a very humiliating experience in the Senate hearings, when it becomes clear to everyone that she is simply not qualified (forget about the ideology factor), and a national consensus emerges to have her withdrawn. I think the Dems strategy will not be to attack her directly, but rather to let her spin slowly in the wind.

Barack Obama's post on DKos and the subsequent evisceration he received.

exists on the part of those who refuse to accept the word of those of us who are opposed or, at best, indifferent, when we state forthrightly that we have overlooked a multitude of offenses and iniquities wrought against conservative principles by this WH precisely because of the issue of the courts.  This was our One Last Thing; we've said as much, and now you b*tch at us when we repeat ourselves?

she may withdraw and bush will appoint gonzalas

and nominate her for attorney general. seems reasonable but that may really upset the base.

opinion on matters in a vaccuum.  She'd receive argument from opposing counsels and she would discuss the case with her brethren in conference.

We shouldn't base our opposition or support on words from the likes of Hugh Hewitt or George Will.  Or from the POTUS, for that matter.

The Senators will see what she can do.  If she is able to think like a Supreme Court opinion, for lack of a better phrase, we'll know it.

See here

But I doubt it.  I'm not sure Bush's arrogance on this issue will allow her to withdraw.

I think he would just move on to what he should have done in the first place and appoint a well qualified women.  There are plenty of them.  I think he would win a philosophical show-down, not just in the Senate, but also with the public.  Always better to cut loses, and the political fall-out would be nil if done quickly.  

Given the choice between Gonzales and Miers, I would choose Gonzales.

Afterall, the President tells us to trust him about Gonzales's views.  Gonzales also has a resume that makes him more qualified than Miers.

This is not the last straw for me.  I am disappointed, but it is not the last straw.

must be for comments only b/c this very post utilizes the strikethrough tag.

have voted in ways that annoyed conservatives too. Do you really think the only acceptable nominee would be one you could be sure would vote the way you want 100% of the time?

Both the front pages and the diaries on dKos--and it's useful to distinguish between the two--are frequently and vocally critical of Democrats who (in their eyes) are falling short of Democratic/progressive principles.

That's the point.  I want someone with a judicial philosophy that indicates where they will come down on issues.  Even Scalia and Thomas, when the have not come down where some conservatives want, have been overwhelming consistent to their pattern of application of their judicial philosophy or perspective.

are people whose expertise I have come to respect. I will accept not only your list but your assumption of the reliability of the opinion of the Committee staff. The reality is that GWB made the pick and I don't think any of you have any rational expectation he will withdraw it as long as he believes she has the votes for confirmation. I also would hope that you would agree that if he withdrew because of dissent in his base, regardless of her qualifications, it would be played and viewed that she was not sufficiently conservative. Consequently, a subsequent nominee would be percieved as being well right of Miers. This process would run well into 2006 and would certainly not guarantee a confirmable or better candidate.

While you obviously don't agree with the pick, it is the pick and it was his pick to make. This is not trusting or accepting it is a good pick. It is acknowleding that it is his right to make the choice, and it is an acknowledgment you made when you voted for him. The decision has been made. It's time to be a soldier or retire from the field. Not to remain in dissent.

As a CEO, I try to build consensus for decisions but at some point they have to be made regardless whether everyone is on board. That's why it's a pretty lonely job sometimes.

If he withdraws the pick, he will be seen as weak.

It is certainly his right to make the pick and the right of senators to reject the pick.

I will continue to support him and the party, but I will dissent on this without retiring from the field.

... our 72-hours are not up until 0819 tomorrow morning Eastern Time!  I thought we had a deal...

Didn't mean to jump in out of place - just busting.

Cheers.

instead of grumble? :-)

during the pre Roberts nomination, I think she would have been acceptable, and I would much prefer her to Miers.

I just think there was a list of strong candidates whose philosophy is well known.

of ticks left in their mainsprings.

Is the problem.  What those of us who trust the President have is his record of solid conservative policies and causes, with a lot of wins on them, and a good list of conservative judges to allow us to give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

What divides us is people like you who guess, guess, guess and then insult from there.

My guess is that she is personally pro-life, just like so many Democratic senators say they are. But, I also guess that she hangs around with a group of people where the issue of life is not a defining issue and who think that overturning Roe really wouldn't accomplish anything, so what's the big deal (I hang out with those sorts of people myself). "

Because I do not buy into the idea of making abortion illegal will fix anything that means I do not care about life? Get over yourself.

Erick,  deal with facts, stop projecting and stop using your projections to smear others with your guesses.  Take a deep breathe and come back and treat everyone involved with this issue with a modicum of professional courtesy.  Stop lashing out at cons who you disagree with.

Because polls show those of you wringing your hands are only 30% of those who call themselves conservatives.  I have been turning off talk radio and news shows and paring down my blog reading simply because people are speculating and rumor mongering and insinuating - things I thought only liberals did.

Want to end the war?  Chill out.  I had to deal with the potential death of one of my twins for 12 months (she had problems early on and stayed in ICU for 10 weeks afterwards) - so don't tell me I do not care about life because I do not care  about your fears.

Please, do us both a favor and ban me from this site.

At least on Roe.  Garza is excellent; McConnell (whom I like) has questionable views on Bob Jones and polygamy.

I've pointed out elsewhere that Miers is the most on-record pro-life pick ever nominated to SCOTUS.

This evidence includes: a) her 1989 contribution to Texans for Life; b) her pro-life campaign for Dallas City Council; c) her post-1990 record of political donations ONLY to 100% pro-life candidates; d) her effort throughout the 1990s to reverse the ABA's support of abortion rights; e) her contribution in 2000 to Donald Stenberg of Nebraska for defending before the Supreme Court Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortion. This latter is especially telling as evidence for her philosophy of CONSTITUIONAL LAW. On pro-life issues, she is NOT a stealth nominee: she is clearly and plainly in public view.

My point about condescension from those who are trusting the President.

The obvious point here seems, to me, to be that he's pulling out a play that got John Roberts nominated with minimal interference.  Whether it's a winning strategy or not at this point, will remain to be seen.  My personal opinion is that we know far too little about Harriet Miers to make even an educated opinion.  This is something that should concern both Democrats and Republicans immensely.  Whether or not the meager paper trail presents itself, we'll have to wait and see.

Furthermore, I think President Bush has bitten off a lot more than he can chew, at a point when he is particularly weak.  (and alienating a significant percentage of his voting base) With Fitzgerald's investigation wrapping up, and the leaders in the House and Senate both under criminal investigation, this could be a serious crisis for the President.  (and rightfully so, in my opinion, particularly for Bill Frist.)

You mention that life is the central issue for most Republicans.  I will concede that this is an issue that concerns a multitude of the country, but for different reasons.  The problem with this issue is that both parties platforms polarize themselves on the issue, while the voting American population is largely moderate.  This leaves us with representation on both sides that is inherently flawed and unrepresentative.  I'd like to see a compromise on the issue, personally.  (a regulated form of abortion that allows for exceptions in cases or rape, incest, and any reasonable facsimile thereof.)

As for the poster above who sarcastically included that "Democrats say their against abortion,"  they are indeed.  There isn't a single person in this country who thinks abortion is a positive thing.  Noone.  The problem is, there are circumstances where it becomes more positive for certain people than the alternative.  There are people who become victims of circumstance, and their rights deserve as much consideration as anyone else's.  

Further, I think the assertion that Republicans are primarily concerned with "life," demands a clarification of their stances on several other issues. In many cases, it seems that the Republican culture of life ends at birth.

You're right: it is the President's prerogative to choose a nominee.  However, that does not mean that those of us who disagree with his decision somehow are obligated to not voice our opinion once he's exercised it.    

http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

As she correctly writes, it's not about whether she is or is not a conservative - per se.  It's about Miers' qualifications.  It's also about the significant charge of Bush nominating his crony.  

Now is the time for this debate.  Not later.  We all have the evidence we need to formulate an opinion on these topics.  This debate needs to take place before we can even get to the substance of her philosophy. The hearings should be reserved for testing her judicial temperament and philosophy.

I think, however, that we will not get to that point with this nomination.  I firmly believe that Bush will have Rove and Miers have a "coming to Jesus meeting" and ask her to submit her name for the good of the order.  Bush will save face by objecting to her withdrawal, but ultimately respect her wishes.

The GOP cannot afford much more bleeding from this nomination; especially so close to '06.  If you don't think this will happen, review what happened to "Brownie," Mary Frances Berry, and Paul O'Neil.

. . .and didn't get an answer, so I'll try again:  looking back at the first five years of GWB's judicial appointments, has he given any reason for anyone to suspect that he was going back on his word to appoint judges in the Scalia/Thomas mode (in type if not degree) to the federal courts?  If not, why assume that this choice represents a betrayal of what up to now had been a consistent pattern?

First Erick, let me say that I have the greatest respect for you, and especially for your take on the courts.  That being said, of course, I plan to disagree :)

Notice that most who've stated they're willing to trust the President are social conservatives; Sekulow, Dobson, Colson, Hewitt.  There's a reason for that.

It's not that any of them could be convinced that anyone who carries  bible, goes to church, or even preaches on Sunday or teaches Sunday school is guaranteed to be pro-life. There are too many cultural christians for that to be true.

No, the key here is believing that Miers is not only an evengelical christian, but also has a biblical worldview.  The distinction is a very important one.

Upon comparing the perspectives of those who have a biblical worldview with those who do not, the former group were 31 times less likely to accept cohabitation (2% versus 62%, respectively); 18 times less likely to endorse drunkenness (2% versus 36%); 15 times less likely to condone gay sex (2% versus 31%); 12 times less likely to accept profanity 3% versus 37%); and 11 times less likely to describe adultery as morally acceptable (4% versus 44%). In addition, less than one-half of one percent of those with a biblical worldview said voluntary exposure to pornography was morally acceptable (compared to 39% of other adults), and a similarly miniscule proportion endorsed abortion (compared to 46% of adults who lack a biblical worldview).

More here.

Dobson, Sekulow, and Colson were convinced she shares their worldview by people who know her best. (Key elements of the story are the conversion, servant leadership, and tithing.)

<--takes breath while those who fear theocracy run screaming from the room-->

This does NOT mean she will impose those views on her opinions.  However, it DOES mean that she will  almost certainly view the law and the courts from the same perspective that these social conservatives ascribe to, (myself included), and that these views are part of the fabric of who she is, therefore she is unlikely to be swayed by her surroundings.

I hope I don't condescend to those who have grave doubts. I agree it's politically risky for Bush to pull a "trust me."  But, it's also classic W.  He doesn't much care what people think because he's focused on the results, not the polls.

For my part, I have concerns that there's a rush to judgement that she is unqualified from a professional perspecitve.

• I like the fact that she's been selected more than once in the nation's top 100 lawyers.
  
• I like the fact that's she's run a business in the real world.
  
• I like the fact that she's been in the White House for the past five years.
  
• I like the fact that her office has been instrumental in choosing judicial picks.

I have a hard time believing that she's been a lawyer for this long at this level and is an intellectual lightweight.  Although it's true she hasn't spent her whole career on constitutional law, that doesn't mean that she won't bring a wisdom and depth to her opinions.  I can definitely see a benefit to having someone on the court from outside academia and a red state.

but everyone is just too pissed off to admit it.

Just my $.02.

·  I like the fact that she's been selected more than once in the nation's top 100 lawyers.

This has no bearing, whatsoever, upon a person's ability to practice law much less to work through the complexities of constitutional caselaw.  I know because I too have been selected for similar honors and I can tell you this, it was not based on my abilities, but more so on my marketing.  If you are an active participant in the ABA, you're going to be selected to these fake honor lists.  Also, true conservatives think the ABA is a joke because its nothing more than popularity contest.  And, it is.

·  I like the fact that's she's run a business in the real world.

Running a law firm is not a business in the real world.  Again, "trust me."  Having worked and served in leadership positions in both a conventional 'business' and a law firm, the difference is stark.  Again, this does not impress me as most managing partners rise to that level of management because they (1) they are good marketers, (2) are bad lawyers, and/or (3) don't want to practice law.  

I notice that tactic creep out in lots of places today. It's obvious that the people vs the elitists meme has struck a cord.  Fox News had several comparisons about the "Critic A from Ivy School X" said this..."Supporter B from State U" thinks its good.

This may sound silly, but I think it will work rather well. How many senators are going to jump ship when it will be portrayed as a sign of snobbery. I venture not many.

It would have been easy to withdraw Owens or Pickering or John Bolton for that matter. I just don't see it happening.

She's a Trial Lawyer.

That is why Harry Reid and some other dems like her. Last time I checked the trial lawyers were still the number 1 contributors to the Democrat party.

Regardless of her views on Roe, aren't there alot of issues that could come before the court where she could do serious damage by coming down on the side of trial lawyers?

And what is Roberts' judicial philosophy?

Since Bork the key to success is to keep the inner workings of your philosophy secret. There is very little more known about him than about Miers. He spent the last 30 years cultivating friends among conservatives in high places in Washington, she did the same in Dallas and later Austin. People that actually have a judicial philosophy don't get called for judicial appointments anymore.

...trust the President have is his record of solid conservative policies and causes...

You jest, no?

Come on - even his most loyal, hard-core, bitter-end supporters have acknowledged for over 5-years now that Bush != conservative.

Or are you figuring NCLB (written by Ted Kennedy), BCRA, MediDrugs, TransPORKation Bill, Energy Bill, Farm Bill, and an 80% larger federal government (in constant, inflation-adjusted $$) than what Jimmy Carter left us is what conservatives have been fighting for all along?

See, for example:

Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (96-3 confirm)

Breyer, Stephen (89-9 confirm)

Scalia, Antonin (98-0 confirm)

None of these three would ever qualify as a "stealth" nominee.  And yet, post-Bork, they were confirmed by wider margins than Roberts.

Just sayin'.

Got Scalia's confirmation and Bork's borking backward.  Apologies.

So, liberals don't have to be stealth candidates.  For conservatives, the jury is still out.

The Last straw for Bush, no the party, who, incidentally, are also questioning the nomination.

If it's the last straw or not.  Let's see what the Senate does to her.

The last straw for Bush already. The Senate is up next. I'm sticking with the RSC for a while longer.

Maybe in 2008, if we continue to have a Republican Senate, we'll start to see liberal stealth candidates....

-TS

Finally someone has explained the Harry Reid support (or at least given a plausible reason).

This does NOT mean she will impose those views on her opinions.  However, it DOES mean that she will  almost certainly view the law and the courts from the same perspective that these social conservatives ascribe to, (myself included), and that these views are part of the fabric of who she is, therefore she is unlikely to be swayed by her surroundings.

then I'm probably going to have to oppose Miers now.

You can try to reassure us that Miers really truly won't impose her 'biblical worldview' on the rest of us while interpreting the Constitution.  But if she will certainly view the law and the courts from the same biblical worldview, I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose her.

The last thing we need is a conservative activist trying to undo the damage of the liberal activists.

-TS

They'll just be portrayed as middle-American, mainstream lovers of baseball (on grass with no DH) and apple pie - no matter how moonbatty they are.

IIRC, Harriet Miers was working alongside the American Tort Reform Association.  Suggest you google that group.

counting out the Big Left Media Party by 2008....

-TS

until at least 2010.

Hillary could very well be their Waterloo.

At least, hope springs eternal.

It is a simple test Erick to determine if you are emoting or have a 'real concern'.  I have it posted as a diary.  Here it is again

(1)  Does your pet issue arise because you do not have specific knowledge of Miers on this issue.

(2)  Does your pet issue rely on you, with less information than Bush, seeing a coming disaster which Bush missed.

If you test any and all of your concerns with this nomination and you get a yes, yes response then you are speculating and assuming the worst.

And if you are speculating and assuming the worst why would anyone respect your position?

You have had my respect for months on judicial nominees.  Is it my fault you lost in a moment of shear panic?

I am not naive about DC politics.  I grew up here.  My grandfather was a US Congressman.  You want warn me of pending doom you better have more than a lot of irrational fears.

I get that from the left all day long.  Reps are starving the children.  Reps hate the poor.  Reps are closet racists and homophobes....

Give my some solid facts about Miers to support you.  Don't go to the 'we don't know so this is what is the worst that could happen' BS.

Been there, done that.  

Three rounds of tax cuts.

Health Savings Acounts

The halt to the destruction of embryos on US money for research

Iraq

Afghanistan

Accountability in education to keep federal money

Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Parental Notifications....

Geez.  Your choice was Bush vs Gore and Kerry.

I do not do mythical fantasies.  Surely you jest???

making it to committee?

Here's the problem:  the Senators will ultimately bow to the pressure of their money men.  If the money men don't like this nomination, they will put pressure on the Senators.  The Senators, in turn, will pressure the WH.  The distrust of the conservative money men is not going anywhere on this nomination. ("There's a great deal of frustration because of the Souter experience," Norquist said. "The problem is there's no fixing, there's no allaying those fears. For the president to say 'Trust me,' it's what he needs to say and has to say, but it doesn't calm the waters.").  Bush no longer has the political capital to put his Senators back in line; especially with elections coming up.  That is, some of the Senators see Bush as weak right now and will be ready to stand up to Bush to win favor with the upset base.  Bush and Rove cannot let that happen.  Otherwise, Bush will be a very early lame duck.  Thus, they will pressure Miers to pull her name out of the hat.  To me, its just a question of when.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/05/AR200510...

I think the Big Dogs are just a little ticked because they were passed over by a person that they look down on as a lesser human being. Perhaps you will all be fooled.

Don't think for a moment that Miers doesn't understand the constitution. She graduated from law school about the same time as Sarah Weddington. She was a Democrat at that time in favor of abortion rights and possibly even discussed this case with Weddington in person. The Roe case came from Texas. There are probably few practicing attorneys as well versed in the  Roe case as Miers.

Don't listen to the pundits; use some common sense

for crying out loud.

The Senate can't require her to try cases in the Senate. What would be the point in having a Judicial Branch? We could just Judge SCOTUS cases in the Senate.

If she reveals nothing in those Senate hearings conservatives WILL be calling for her nomination to be withdrawn.  She doesn't have the resume Roberts did so she can't act accordingly.

Oh, and don't be confident Dems will support her, first pro-life whiff they get off her and she's target #1/

I ask, "Why?"

You make out as if support for this president has been entirely unreserved these last five years.

I cannot speak for others, but I've been holding my nose for the last five years. Steel tarriffs, BCRA, support for the assault weapons ban, immigration, spending, the prescription drug benefit, NCLB; if I had all night I couldn't fully list all of the Bush policies that I loathe.

And yet I gave the guy my vote, twice, because judicial appointments was one of the only issues on which there was a dime's worth of difference between him and his opponents. He claimed to want to nominate Scalias and Thomases.

Yet when push came to shove, and opportunity presented itself, he's nominated a cipher whose qualifications for the post are considerably less impressive than any of the posters at Volokh Conspiracy. The only thing that distinguishes Harriet Miers from literally thousands of people with similar academic and professional credentials is the fact that she's this president's friend.

If ostensible Republicans are going to govern as corruptly and incompetently as would Democrats, then we might as well have the real thing.

I don't expect her to give an opinion on hot button issues.

Right now, I'm a supporter for the same reason Tbone is.  She deserves the benefit of the doubt.

But if she doesn't give a cogent, convincing treatis at the hearings as to her great love and respect for the proper place of the judiciary in our constitutional system of government, that support will fade.

By the way, do you guys think today might be a good day for an open thread?  I have a couple of comments/questions that don't deserve a diary, but I would like to post.

Let's leave aside for the moment that fact that I believe she is qualified.  Let's just talk human nature.

She, and the Bush team, may also want to avoid what could be a very humiliating experience in the Senate hearings, when it becomes clear to everyone that she is simply not qualified

When was the last time anyone with a modicum of talent believed themselves unqualified for anything?  For goodness sakes, John Kerry thinks he is qualified to be the President of the United States.  Bill Clinton thinks he is qualified to be President of the World (and as long as we're at it, he thinks the American people made an exception and made his election a lifetime appointment - he just won't go away.)

Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, et al think they are not only qualified to sit on the court, but to go back and rewrite the Constitition to say other things (like public use/benefit) without bothering with those silly little things like elections.

After the way the donks have treated Bush's nominees, I will personally grab Kit Bond's arm and twist it off his body if he gives Hillary a pass on her first Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  

And I'm positive I'm not alone.

(as is c17wife)

But you have to realize, this site is for the deep red base.  We were all expecting/spoiling for a big fight over our rights to a judiciary that doesn't make laws.

Bush obviously didn't want the filibuster/big bomb.  He believes he chose an originalist, but we were cheated of a "Strong Paper Trail Originalist Who Might Be Filibustered But, By George, We've Got A Majority Nominee".

That is why the overall polls show tentative to strong support with a wait and see attituted but it looks as if he sacrificed Barbara to baal on this site.

matter of fact, a high five with ice cream, chocolate and a cherry for dessert.

Good post.

What a biblical worldview is.

We respect authority.  It's because we have to.  The Bible said to do so absolutely unequivocally and specifically.

Her authority will be the Constitution and the people (as voters we have true authority over our government and Constitution) beyond it.  If she truly has a biblical worldview, to rule on an issue from her personal viewpoint versus the Consitution/rule of law would be a grave sin.

It is the reason the Alabama Attorney General (Ownes?) removed Roy Moore from office under Supreme Court rulings, regardless of his personal view of the monument.

It is the reason Attorney General John Ashcroft enforced laws protecting abortion clinics regardless of his definite and deep opposition to their existence.

Looking back at the first five years of GWB's judicial appointments, has he given any reason for anyone to suspect that he was going back on his word to appoint judges in the Scalia/Thomas mode (in type if not degree) to the federal courts?

I'd find this argument more persuasive if you'd open it up a bit, and ask us if there is anything in the sum toral of Bush's appointments that have "caused [us] to be concerned".

And the answer is, Yes, there have been several Bush appointments that have caused me concern (and, for once, I'm not talking about "Brownie").

In terms of his Judicial picks, I wouldn't say I was "concerned" with any of the ones (previous to now) that I have known something about, though I've been a little underwhelmed by a few.

But Miers has taken that concern into a whole new ballgame...