« Gay priests? | Main | Questioning the conventional wisdom »


This may be the most troublesome thing I've read yet regarding the Miers nomination. It's from yesterday's Wall Street Journal.

At issue is a case Miers argued on Bush's behalf in 2000, regarding an obscure provision in the 12th Amendment that was a potential sticking point for the Bush-Cheney ticket in Texas. From the WSJ piece:

Her legal team succesfully persuaded a judge to take what her brief described as a "broad and inclusive" reading of the Constitution....

Mr. Aufhauser, Ms. Miers's co-counsel, suggested that whatever the 12th Amendment might have meant in 1804, the provision's meaning had, in effect, evolved with modern society. "Differences between the year 1800 and 2000 is more than two centuries, it's light years," said Mr. Aufhauser, noting the "rapidity with which each of us have changed addresses from schools and college to various marriages and jobs."

What the hell? I mean seriously, what the hell?! Isn't this exactly the kind of jurisprudence Bush promised to protect us from? Clues as to Miers' Constitutional philosophy are few and far between, and the ones that do exist are not encouraging, to say the least.

Admittedly this is but a single case, but in the absence of supporting evidence, it makes it damned hard for the White House to portray her as some kind of originalist or strict constructionist.

What then, does this whole "wink, wink, just trust me" message mean? That Miers is conservative? Pro-life? I'm perfectly willing to believe that Ms. Miers is politically conservative in her views, but what kind of justice will she make? There is enough reason to cause me to worry that she could emerge as a judicial activist on the Right, practicing exactly the sort of jurisprudence that our side typically disdains.


You have 2 problems. The 1st one is that you are a conservative. Of course, I should point out that I disagree with conservatives, but I respect many of them because they are principled.

The 2nd problem you have is that you believed that Bush had principles. People like me (liberals) have realized that he does not have any real principles for a long time. I am glad that people on the right come to start realizing that. Bush is not a conservative and never was. He is only a politician (whose actions are controlled by others with no principles, i.e. Karl Rove).

In any case, I am personally glad that Miers will make it in the supreme court. This, despite the fact that I agree fully with conservatives that she is not qualified and that her nomination is kind of a joke. However, I fell very confident that she will vote moderately in the soupreme court. She is neither conservative nor pro-life. If she were pro-life, Bush would had not nominated her. As I said before, Bush does not want Roe v Wade overturned. For very obvious reasons. Is very simple.

Blue, I have many, many more than 2 problems. But believing that Bush is "principled" is not high among the list. ;-)

Post a comment