ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Aggressively promoting our Neutral Position on Harriet Miers

H/T Protein Wisdom

Well N.Z. Bear has some code crawling the blogosphere looking for the exact positions of each blog on the Harriet Miers nomination. As readers of this blog know, we're waiting for the nominee to actually open her mouth and provide us with her opinions on her judicial philosophy before making a judgement.

Here are the results that N.Z. Bear has found.

We have serious concerns, such as the potential "Gonzales" problem (where she is forced to recuse herself from matters before the court that involve issues surrounding the PATRIOT Act and the War On Terror in general. (This is my biggest misgiving.) I'm also concerned about her apparent promotion of the amicus brief filed in the Univ of Michigan Law Scool racial quota case. Not just that the status quo was championed, but because it resulted in some of the most twisted logic out of O'Connor in decades: I've never seen a constitutional right that had a temporal quality.

However, I know that this President can be trusted when it comes to judges. I just hope that he wasn't looking solely at the results of her potential positions on the Court, but that she was truly a strict constructionist - because there will be plenty of issues where having a Strict Constructionist is more important than having a Pro-Life Justice. Sure, Bush may "know" how she'll rule on abortion, but how would she have ruled on Kelo? Strict Constructionism is more than just a ruling on Roe... it's an overarching philosophy that will make sure future and similarly idiotic rulings never occur in the first place.

For these reasons, I am neutral on the Miers nomination.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler