Why? There is no obligation for any Senator, from any party, to vote for a nominee whose legal philosophy differs from said Senator’s.
And your “paper trail” dodge is just that. You appear to be saying that we cannot ask a nominee about his/her position on particular issues, but if they previously wrote that position down, it’s OK to use that. What sense does that make?
Sua
It makes sense in that, we would have a record, a proof that this is how the person will rule or decide in the future. A verbal litmus test concentrates on only one issue, to the exclusion of all others, and is usually just the political hot potato of the day.
On the other hand, if litmus test questions are OK, then they are OK for everyone - all or nothing. What we have now, is litmus is OK for some, but not for others. Either do it to all, or to none.
Well, I would strongly disagree with you that what a nominee has written in the past is proof of how he/she would rule in the future. My legal philosophy has certainly changed since my law school writings, for example.
But why should one issue alone not be a valid basis for a Senator’s vote? One issue alone is certainly is the basis for a lot of citizen’s votes for candidates. I find nothing in the Constitution or in common sense that prohibits, or even makes it a bad thing, if Senator X votes for or against a nominee on the basis of how the nominee feels on the issue of independence for Guam, much less any other issue.
If said Senator’s constituents don’t like that, let them vote Senator X out.
No, what we have is some people saying litmus test A is fine, but litmus test B is inappropriate. The best responses to such people is to either ignore them or mock them.
Sua
We have to go by what Miers supported in the past, that’s all we have to go on. Other than the other drivel - good conservative christian from the right church, loyal flunky and toady to Bush, which causes she supported (anti-abortion or pro-life or whatever it was). Still, I don’t trust all the “trust me” and “good conservative christian” stuff, with no other info. I also don’t like the “secret meetings” with Dobson. Apparently nobody else with power likes it either. The left and the right are both against her. The left because she may allow religion or personal agenda color her judgement, and the right because it may not color her judgement enough. This is the Supreme Court, not the SBC. I expect she will try to stonewall during the confirmation hearings.
With utmost and most extreme reluctance, I feel compelled to interpose.
How can one possibly rhapsodize about true, living Demoscracy and trah Andrew Jackson in the same post?
Andrew Jackson!!!
The face on the $20 bill! The creator of the great Democratic party!! The father of US Democracy!!! The man who broke the lockhold on power by post-colonial oligarchs and gave power to the people, first time in American history!!!
Granted, the man was a charismatic killer and thought nothing about conducting Indian massacres. Just goes to show that “living, true Democracy” is a double-edged sword.
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that Bush is now touting Harriet Miers as qualified to serve on the US Supreme Court because of her religious beliefs? What on earth does that have to do with forming a judicial philosophy, unless that philosophy will be used to interpret the Ten Commandments, not the US Constitution?
I already said that. It bugs me a lot.
It has much to do with it, if we accept elucidator’s words. After all, according to him, what is Constitutional is simply what is just and democratic. What the words say is not important. All you need to be able to do is figure out wat is just and democratic in any given situation, and you know what the Constitution requires.
Her religious beliefs may not help with the “democratic” end, but they are arguably helpful to her determining “justice” in a given situation.
You mean besides the fact that the same administration was demanding just a few weeks ago that Roberts’ religion *not * be a factor? Well, there’s Article VI of the ol’ Constitution too:
Remember the spirit as well as the letter.
But really, it isn’t about her religion as such being a qualification, it’s just a coded way of reassuring the tighties that she’ll vote to reverse Roe.
Yes. I posted the same thing about a page ago.
I said that? Damn, I’m really sorry, guys. I mean, I knew I wasn’t posting anything actually dazzling, ya know? Not a glittering butterfly of intricate and luminous thought, or anything. But I didn’t think I said anything so obviously shit-witted and Ricky Retardo.
Boy, is my face red!
It could happen to almost anyone. The important thing is that you learned a lesson.
More and more, it’s looking to me, like she has no qualifications, other than an absolute devotion to Bush, and her “devout conservative religious background”. Apparently, I’m in mixed company about this - the left and the right are both opposed to her.
No, I think your point is pretty well established and known on both sides.
I don’t know, I’m liking her more and more. I’m doubting her strong religious convictions, considering her, ah, social life. And I think she’s one of the people the court would change. She wouldn’t do a bad job, as long as she’s not a lapdog. And the White House Council position has prepared her, at least as well as any.
Now, she’s not my ideal justice… but she’ll do, I guess. Better than Gonzales.
I think this is significant: Court Nominee Backed Anti-Abortion Amendment in 1989
Now, what does this do to the vote in the Senate? Does it guarantee that the Democrats will vote against her, and would that in turn solidify Republican support?
Apologies if this has been brought up already; I stopped reading this thread a while ago when it turned into a debate on members’ constitutional philosophies instead of one on what, if anything, Harriet Miers has for constitutional values. But I found this Wall Street Journal article most interesting, and as informative as anything I’ve seen yet on the elusive Ms. Miers.
It gives Dems more cover to vote against her if they so choose, but it does not indicate that she would overturn Roe v Wade. It’s evidence that she might do so, but not that she will do so.
From Polycarp’s link:
Barring a statement by Miers herself, however - and we know how likely that is - it’s the strongest evidence they’re going to get. Even with the political considerations, we’re talking about people who know her very well. I think the Democrats probably have to vote against her now.