Cheers!
I love that she doesn't come from the bench and I even wish she wasn't lawyer to boot -
I say this because I sincerely believe that Judge Roberts won't be the 'conservative' that we in FR all hope he will be.
There are two reasons I feel this way. First, almost nobody predicted Bush would nominate Roberts. All the prognosticators, conservatives and lefties alike, guessed other, better known right wing justices. So why was Roberts selected by Pres. Bush? Why was nearly every one taken by surprise?
Second, and more imporantly, is the fact that the "Catholic" Roberts answered exactly the way JFK did when asked if his Catholic faith would be a factor in his decisions. JFK essentially said he wouldn't be bringing his faith to work, and that neither his Catholic beliefs, the Pope's dictums, nor the Bible itself would have any influence whatsoever on his decisions. Judge Roberts quickly and convincingly echoed John F. Kennedy's sentiments, almost verbatum.
A man of true Christian faith will not put his faith in his pocket when making policies or judicial rulings that govern men. Faith will always play at least some role in a true Christian's decisions.
Roberts basically denied his Christian faith when those angry, anti-Christian Senators questioned him, exactly as Peter did when he was questioned similarly by an angry group who hated Christ; (Luke 22:56 - - though Peter later collapsed in tears and repented of his denial, as I pray Roberts will do too).
"My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role", Judge Roberts said.
He added later,"There's nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedent of the court faithfully,"
Roberts also said, "I don't look to the Bible or any other religious sources."
Then Roberts added: "They (rulings) won't be based on my personal views. They will be based on my understanding of the law,".
Perhaps the worst thing Roberts said was: "I believe very strongly in the separation of power … that is very protective of our individual liberty."
So with this last quote,Judge Roberts already shows us how he can pull something from the Constitution that does not exist.
To me, a man who puts his faith on the shelf from 9:00 a.m to 4:00 p.m. because his job entails interpreting a human document is essentially denying his faith, and that's not good. Especially since Roberts will be interpreting the Constitution, not writing it. The Constitution was, after all, written by a body of men of whom many were Christians, and of whom most believed that the "Creator", (God), is the One who endowed us with certain inalienable rights, as is made obvious in the Bill of Rights. So if our rights and our Constitution were influenced by faith in God, why can't modern Justices interpret the Constitution through their religious faith?
Actually I think the answer to why Bush picked her is simple. During the course of Miers veting dozens of judicial nominees Bush spent more time discussing judicial issues with Miers than anyone else since he was elected--probably ever. During that time he came to admire her, and realized her views and his were aligned, both because she shared his basic outlook, and she probably helped him flesh out his own opinions. He came to trust her judgement, and believes she is the best person he knows to build and protect what he views as his legacy, a conservative non-activist SCOTUS. When he says he named her because she is the most qualified person for the job he means that he has more confidence in her than anyone else to defend and articulate those ideas. If it's poker, then Bush isn't playing tricky, he's just betting what he thinks is the best hand.
Instead of enforcing party discipline and standing up to the liberals - including, McCain, Snowe, Chafee, Specter and their ilk - they have decided to cut the President off at the knees time and again. Nevertheless, the President could have forced a fight with the mid-term election cycle getting into gear and given opponents - both Republican and Democrat - a bit more pause when considering their actions.
The President isn't playing poker. He's cashing in his chips and leaving the game.
From a while back:
****
GWB: HBS MBA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070924/posts
The American Thinker February 3, 2004 | Thomas Lifson
*****
(snip)
One final note on George W. Bush’s management style and his Harvard Business School background does not derive from the classroom, per se. One feature of life there is that a subculture of poker players exists. Poker is a natural fit with the inclinations, talents, and skills of many future entrepreneurs. A close reading of the odds, combined with the ability to out-psych the opposition, leads to capital accumulation in many fields, aside from the poker table.
By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student. One of the secrets of a successful poker player is to encourage your opponent to bet a lot of chips on a losing hand. This is a pattern of behavior one sees repeatedly in George W. Bush’s political career. He is not one to loudly proclaim his strengths at the beginning of a campaign. Instead, he bides his time, does not respond forcefully, at least at first, to critiques from his enemies, no matter how loud and annoying they get. If anything, this apparent passivity only goads them into making their case more emphatically.
I for one do not know what he's doing. But I tend to think his choice isn't pretty, but very functional for those who wanted a constructionist.
The Democrats don't have to attack her faith at all.
They can completely knock her out of the ball park by pointing out her obvious lack of professional qualifications for this job. That is reason enough.
In the end they could not argue credibly that Roberts did not have the qualifications for the Supreme Court. They can very credibly argue that Miers does not.
I think that it does not matter what I think. Unless I can vote on it, that's all it amounts to - a thought.