In any case, I'm not yet convinced that Miers' conservative Christianity wasn't a part of the distaste some powerful persons had for her. I'll keep my eyes on that one to see that I hopefully am wrong.
I still think she should have been allowed to speak for herself.
Finally, I'm still not sure that this whole appointment wasn't some strategery that either backfired terribly or is working brilliantly. Unfortunately, those kind of memoirs get written years after a president is gone, so I'll probably never get to read about it.
On the other hand, I'll be with the Lord.
You won't hear any complaints from me. The Civil Rights judicial oversight was intended to be a temporary, prophylactic measure. I see no reason why a narrowly-tailored racial affirmative action shouldn't follow under the same guise - find disadvantaged, talented minorities who showed potential and give them an extra boost.
In any case, I'm not yet convinced that Miers' conservative Christianity wasn't a part of the distaste some powerful persons had for her. I'll keep my eyes on that one to see that I hopefully am wrong.
It clearly wasn't the reason for my aversion. Indeed the "she's an Evangelical, hint, hint" whispering campaign alienated me, as an Evangelical. I felt pandered to.
I'm still not sure that this whole appointment wasn't some strategery that either backfired terribly or is working brilliantly.
I rather suspect it was like "New Coke" - they weren't brilliant enough to have come up with the New Coke flop as a marketing ploy to make everyone demand Coca-Cola Classic. Pres. Bush and his advisors miscalculated. Nothing more, nothing less. He probably figured, "Hey, my lawyer's done good work for me, she'd be a good Supreme Court justice." To a person unversed in the complexities of Constitutional law, that might even seem like a good idea.