What the hell does that mean? All she needs to do is get four votes to side with her and what she says will become law. She doesn't have to challenge the liberal legal mainstream, it will have to challenge her.
Here is the problem with that idea. It's not just the votes that matter - it's the reasoning in the decisions. There are hundreds of district and appellate courts across this country with conservative justices who look for guidance from the Supreme Court on how to best articulate their position so that it stands in the face of numerous appeals on each fine point of the law.
In fact, while many decisions of the Supreme Court may not be memorable, lines and footnotes from those decisions most certainly are. In order to defend what's left of constitutional law, we need to have a justice who understands how to represent the conservative position in the face of years of jurisprudence that goes "the other way." Might Miers be able to do it? Perhaps. But why not go with someone who has already proven themselves?
posted on 10/17/2005 11:44:24 AM PDT
by July 4th
(A vacant lot cancelled out my vote for Bush.)
To: July 4th
"But why not go with someone who has already proven themselves?"
Because 41 people, not qualified to catch dogs will not let this person sit on the bench. How is that for a reason?
posted on 10/17/2005 11:49:09 AM PDT
(Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson