Hard to say. Not much is known about her. Bush just wants us to trust him. I'm not really into that. Although the fact that conservative pundits are worried about her, puts a little peace in my mind. Amazing how we can all see abortion and other issues so differently, yet just as strong as the other.

She used to belong to a group at her church called the "action committee."  It was an anti-abortion group.  Or maybe that was just part of what they stood for.  Either way, they were pro-life.  So there's one of ther opinions.

I hope she doesn't end up what Roberts did, where he just went mute.  I don't care who the nominee is at that point, I want them gone, because they're afraid to say their opinion.  It's scary, to have someone with a lot of influence over your life, and know nothing about them.

Yes. But I believe through hearings and questions we will learn more about her. As for her being on an anti-abortion group-if she was on a church group trying to discourage women from abortion and present other options...my point is that it doesn't necessarily say if she wants the government to ban it altogether, etc. Although I'm sure it's probably predictable where her vote would go, and I see your point. On the other hand, I think Roberts handled his questioning very well...I hadn't know much about him but listened to some of the hearings, and thought he presented himself in a non-activist but very strong way.

I think Bush asked us to "trust him" because of the conservative uproar, but obviously ultimately it will beyond merely trusting him as we find out more about her. I'm simply criticizing the way some conservatives and liberals are doubting her.

Well, I'm glad we see each other's views.

But Bush was a little funky on how he handled the questioning about her when I watched him.  He was nervous before every question.  The press is cracking down on him.  They were asking about race and class and stuff that made him uncomfortable.  Good for them.  They've gotten beyond what they were and started to be real people concerned with real issues.

Good point, newmindlifestyle.

He may have been; Bush isn't the best of speakers, as we all know. But I won't comment further because I only saw bits and pieces of it played back on the news, and I'm not sure of what you mean about them asking about race, class etc or if it went beyond the typical questions media asks. But, as I said, I did not see most of it.

I'll take your word for it, although like I said to further comment I'd have to have seen it. Regardless, if such questioning and reactions from Bush continue, I'll see it on my own. I think we'd all like to see a media that focuses more on issues at hand and what really needs to be asked; I won't get into biases and the negativities of things such as the war that certain fields of the press tend to linger on (well, I guess that's part of bias) but as you said, the press does not focus on the issues at hand.

misinterpreted, you make a good point. I have a feeling with her record and background coming into a more clear view, there will be less conservative debate over his choice. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

"I do not feel the fact she attended SMU means she is any less qualified, but I do think her difference in experience might bring diversity to the Supreme Court "

Her lack of experience, won't necessarily bring diversity. I don't think it will be a good thing or a bad thing.

"(The article, which I will cite at the end, does not name the person who said this.) I've heard this comment a few times since her nomination-that she isn't as strong of a conservative or as "controversial" as they had hoped. But we need to look at this. First of all, I don't think anyone, especially those who said things alone these lines immediately following her nomination, are really sure of where she stands. She could be a "strong conservative" or perhaps "controversial" but then again, she might not be. How would we know that yet? (These comments have come from conservatives, mind you. I understand that liberals might interpret Bush's aid as a nominee as being likely of being categorized as controversial.) "

Pat Buchanan and others make comments about not being conservative enough because they are so used to being catered to by the Bush Administration. They expected the nominee to be on the far-right, and she doesn't appear to be. I don't see Miers as being a controversial figure in the sense of viewpoints, but just as an example of Bush's patronage. That is, giving jobs to friends, aides, or contributors. This happens in every administration, and the fact that she is an example of patronage doesn't mean she isn't qualified. Every nominee is controversial in a way.

As for the nomination process and what a few people said about Roberts, I think it is the responsibility of a nominee to answer questions. I was very impressed at the way Roberts was able to dance around any question given to him and still get confirmed easily. People say that it isn't right to ask nominees lithmus test questions, but aren't all questions in a sense lithmus test? Besides that, what could you ask? Will you uphold the Constitiution? Of course, they will say yes. Because of his reluctance to answer so many questions, if I were a Senator I would not have been able to confirm Roberts. If Miers' nomination goes similar, we still won't know anything, and I wouldn't vote for her if I was a Senator.

On a related note, the fact that any conservatives complain about a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court, or the Supreme Court as a whole, is stupid. The Supreme Court has been in the Republican corner since the early 70s, and remains in that corner. The extreme right even says that the Supreme Court is destroying America. Why? Because they made some decisions the extreme right doesn't agree with? They say that activist judges are a bigger threat to America than terrorists. Isn't that kind of anti-American, since they are downplaying the threat of terrorism? They even conveniently forget that the man who is considered the father of judicial activism, Earl Warren, was a Republican who was nominated by Eisenhower and considered a conservative for the most part. So you see, the far right is out to get everybody who doesn't agree with them, not just liberals.

The whole problem is, for mostly everyone, I believe, is that she has no experience. She's never been a judge, nor a student of constitutional law. While she may be able to jurisdict over such popular social problems such as abortion, and maybe gay rights; there are a plethora of cases that go before the Supreme Court that she would have no idea where the law stands on that particular issue. Granted, not every nominee to the Court are going to be legal geniuses like Ginsburg and Roberts, but this woman would have to sit out 95% of the cases because she has no knowledge of constitutional law! Seriously, does Bush just give gov't posts to the first person he sees? Even Ann Coulter agrees with me, which honestly scares the fuck out of me.

"By the way, sorry I didn't continue commenting that one day like I said I would. I was having one of those days where I was depressed and just didn't have the drive to get out of bed and connect to the Internet. Life is tough."

It happens. No worries.

Frankly, I was impressed with Roberts answers. I think what you see as him avoiding questions is me thinking that he's trying to show, as he's said, that he has no agenda but upholding the constitution. As for the basic topics of abortion, etc...well, yes, those do require flat-out answers. But overall I think he appeared very competent, professional, and intelligent in his answerings. But to each his own...what's most important is how he will perform during his career (obviously.)

As for Bush catering to them-are you implying he was catering to the far right crowd with the nomination of Roberts, or just catering in general? Because I think it would be a stretch to say Roberts is extreme, or that if he is it won't infiltrate into his decision-making.

Have you ever read the book "Men in black"? I haven't yet-my dad has it and i've looked through it a few times, but it seems to give a lot of insight into the justices. I think a lot of the conservative opinion on the supreme court stems from the fact that many justices such as sandra o'conner being more swing-votes instead of the conservative votes they originally thought they would be.

"They say that activist judges are a bigger threat to America than terrorists. Isn't that kind of anti-American, since they are downplaying the threat of terrorism?"

I would say that activist judges, depending on what exactly is implied with that, just may be a bigger threat to America. Consider the recent topic of eminent domain (sorry if I spelled that wrong.) Those kinds of issues which slowly drain our freedom-collapse of a nation from within-may well be just as big of a threat as terrorism.

Sorry this was kind of scattered..I might add more later, but I'll probably just wait to see what you have to say.

"Frankly, I was impressed with Roberts answers. I think what you see as him avoiding questions is me thinking that he's trying to show, as he's said, that he has no agenda but upholding the constitution. As for the basic topics of abortion, etc...well, yes, those do require flat-out answers. But overall I think he appeared very competent, professional, and intelligent in his answerings. But to each his own...what's most important is how he will perform during his career (obviously.)"

I believe he was very good at dancing around lithmus test questions, but that doesn't mean he answered the questions to a point where it showed he was the best for the job. And frankly I don't know why Bush wouldn't elevate Thomas or Scalia to the Chief Justice position. Either way, he's already confirmed now, there's nothing I can do.

"As for Bush catering to them-are you implying he was catering to the far right crowd with the nomination of Roberts, or just catering in general? Because I think it would be a stretch to say Roberts is extreme, or that if he is it won't infiltrate into his decision-making. "

Maybe not catering to the extreme right, but to conservatives in general. I'd say the right is pretty happy for the most part.

"Have you ever read the book "Men in black"? I haven't yet-my dad has it and i've looked through it a few times, but it seems to give a lot of insight into the justices. I think a lot of the conservative opinion on the supreme court stems from the fact that many justices such as sandra o'conner being more swing-votes instead of the conservative votes they originally thought they would be. "

I've looked at the back cover and the jacket. He may have grounds to say that the Supreme Court has been friendly to liberals, but how could a liberal Supreme Court possibly be "Destroying America".

"I would say that activist judges, depending on what exactly is implied with that, just may be a bigger threat to America. Consider the recent topic of eminent domain (sorry if I spelled that wrong.) Those kinds of issues which slowly drain our freedom-collapse of a nation from within-may well be just as big of a threat as terrorism. "

Well, I just don't know about that. In no way do I defend the decision, but honestly, is this a bigger threat than terrorism? Public officials can deny us our right to property now, but what were terrorists doing when they flew those planes into the buildings? Denying property, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Besides, how widespread do you think emeinent domain will be? That decision was specifically on an issue in Connecticut and public officials there are finding ways to severely limit it. I'm sorry, but I think it's pretty un-American to downplay something like terrorism. Actually, judicial activism, by definition did not apply in that decision. Judicial activism is defined as the willingness of judges to strike down statutes to guarantee citizens rights. So if anything, I'd call the vote a majority of judges making a stupid decision. Judicial activism, by definition would refer to Roe v. Wade. In that case, disagree with that decision (Roe v. Wade) all you want but is it helping to destroy America? Not hardly.

Well, I guess I interpreted it somewhat differently. Perhaps not judicial activism but rather the decisions of the court itself. (I'm too tired to care about poorly-structured sentences.) Eminent domain was just an example of limiting freedoms. There is something very different from these two separate threats-terrorism and supreme court decisions/activism/anything that dictates how we are governed and anything that reflects the movement of the country. That is simply that the majority of American can come to a consensus about terrorism. We can see it in black and white terms...we might not always agree about how to deal with terrorism, but we can come to a consensus about the fact that it is wrong and why it's wrong, etc. On the other hand, the former entity mentioned has the possibility of not being so black and white, and unlike terrorism, it can destroy our country-from within-throughout a certain time in history or within a generation or two...it can sneak up on us. Little by little, our freedoms can be chiseled away, and there will be some who disagree with certain things and others who agree...but we may not all come to a consensus about what things within our country are resulting in robbing away our freedoms and our foundation. I see these two things in different lights because of this. Yes, terrorism is evil, but it is also defined, and it can be fought while we stand on a clear basis of right and wrong. However things like supreme court cases and who our justices are, over time, aren't so apparent, but can lead to a destruction that occurs over time.

I'm not trying to downplay terrorism at all, just so I can get that out. Both things just have to illustrated within their appropriate context. And yes, I did kind of skip from judicial activism to a broader picture, which was something I should've explained more concisely in our analytical debates.

"In that case, disagree with that decision (Roe v. Wade) all you want but is it helping to destroy America? Not hardly."

Realize that there are many people who would say it IS helping to destroy America. They would say that by degenerating the moral foundation we are weakening our system as a whole. I don't really feel like opening up the abortion debate but I just thought I'd throw that out there.

You criticized conservatives for making a comments along these lines:

"They say that activist judges are a bigger threat to America than terrorists. Isn't that kind of anti-American, since they are downplaying the threat of terrorism?"

However I just came across a rather interesting phrase in an article I was reading. It was discussing religion in America and its influence in politics. It quoted Robert Reich, who wrote:

"The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism...terrorism is a tactic, not a belief... the true battle will be between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face."

So here we have a liberal saying another issue-religion's interpretation-is a greater threat than terrorism. Now, of course I do not agree with the point in specific he is making, but through this he emphasizes what I was trying to say, which is that these are all different levels of issues that face our nation and there is nothing "anti-American" necessarily about saying something is a larger threat. It's all a matter of opinion.

Just thought I'd slap that up here..it reminded me of what you'd said when I read it.

Well, I have to disagree when you say that terrorism can't destroy us quickly. We can fight terrorism abroad constantly, but does that obliterate the threat? No. I'll tell you what...I can make it so you and the rest of this country never has a problem with terrorism again...All you have to do is give me absolute power. Give me all of your rights. I'll create such a police state that the government will interfere constantly. There's no way you or anyone else will be able to plan anything without the government finding out about it. Our borders will be so secure that we'll have a track on every single plane and passenger coming in or going out. I swear that if you give me (or anyone else) absolute power and all of your rights, you will never have a problem with terrorists again.

What's your point, Brian? The point is, if you are so worried about the judicial branch limiting rights, why don't you focus on what terrorism can do? You can prevent judicial activism by simply dissolving the Supreme Court and the entire judicial system. No rights are lost. But the only way to completely prevent terrorism is to create a police state. If you want to talk in terms of limiting rights, think about the only choice we would have if we wanted to completely stop terrorists.

Now, I will say that judicial activism could be a potential threat, albeit miniscule compared to terrorism. But how do you stop it? Now at first you'll think, "You just told me how to stop it! Just kill the judicial branch!" But, what is judicial activism? It is the willingness of judges to strike down statutes. So by following the definition of judicial activism, the only way to stop it is to strike down our own Constitutuional statute, thus becoming an activist and a hypocrite. So let me ask you something: How do you stop judicial activism?

"Realize that there are many people who would say it IS helping to destroy America. They would say that by degenerating the moral foundation we are weakening our system as a whole. I don't really feel like opening up the abortion debate but I just thought I'd throw that out there."

Now I believe we've discussed morality. Have we not decided that morality is something you decide on your own? In that case, you should realize that there are people who would call overturning Roe v. Wade "degenerating the moral foundation"

"However I just came across a rather interesting phrase in an article I was reading. It was discussing religion in America and its influence in politics. It quoted Robert Reich, who wrote:

"The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism...terrorism is a tactic, not a belief... the true battle will be between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face."

So here we have a liberal saying another issue-religion's interpretation-is a greater threat than terrorism. Now, of course I do not agree with the point in specific he is making, but through this he emphasizes what I was trying to say, which is that these are all different levels of issues that face our nation and there is nothing "anti-American" necessarily about saying something is a larger threat. It's all a matter of opinion.

Just thought I'd slap that up here..it reminded me of what you'd said when I read it. "

Brian says: I don't think that saying something is a bigger threat, is unAmerican. I think downplaying the threat of terrorism is unAmerican. Of course there is a very fine line there. It is my opinion that Reich's comments along with the conservatives who say the Supreme Court is a bigger threat are indeed downplaying terrorism. Like you said, that is a matter of opinion. I am glad that Reich acknowledged the threat of terrorism, but I say he is still dead wrong.

I don't believe I said that terrorism can't destroy us quickly (unless I skimmed what I said too quickly and missed where I had said it.) I was just making the point that while terrorist acts themselves are, as in the term I used, more "black and white", a lot of the things that could destroy us from within-small robberies of our freedom-can over time make us nothing like the nation our Constitution orginally created.

However, consider this. You discussed terrorism destroying us in the sense that we'd have to reduce freedoms and rights in order to obliterate it. But, many of the decisions that would do this would stem from the choices made by supreme court justices. And note I said somewhere along the line that I wasn't necessarily referring to judicial activists; it is merely that I think who is on the supreme court is possibly just as big of a threat as terrorists because the kind of power those justices have could take away our rights just as much-and simply in a different way...as I said, in ways that would sneak up on us. But if our supreme court justices do their job, we would never have to worry about our rights being drained in order to fight terrorism-we would never turn into a police state. So once again with this in mind i believe the court holds just as much importance and is just as potentially large of a threat. In a sense I am agreeing with you-I'm just taking it a step further.

Judicial activism, to me, also includes having a personal or political agenda instead of adhering to the constitution. There is probably no reasonable way to be sure of curing ourselves of it, except to wisely inform ourselves of who our justices are, and for them to be wisely chosen. Easier said than done, of course.

"Now I believe we've discussed morality. Have we not decided that morality is something you decide on your own? In that case, you should realize that there are people who would call overturning Roe v. Wade "degenerating the moral foundation"

You basically repeated what I said. I said what you quoted me on in reply to this: "In that case, disagree with that decision (Roe v. Wade) all you want but is it helping to destroy America? Not hardly." from your last post. Just as you replied, what I'm saying is that some people would say it is helping to destroy America by tearing away its morals.

One last thing. I think you are contradicting yourself. You said this: "They say that activist judges are a bigger threat to America than terrorists" and then proceeded to call that un-American. However, now you're saying "I don't think that saying something is a bigger threat, is unAmerican."

So it appears we agree that saying something is a bigger threat does not make you unAmerican. I never defended those who downplay the threat of terrorism, after all.

"One last thing. I think you are contradicting yourself. You said this: "They say that activist judges are a bigger threat to America than terrorists" and then proceeded to call that un-American. However, now you're saying "I don't think that saying something is a bigger threat, is unAmerican.""

I said that it is unAmerican if they downplay the threat of terrorism. If they are not, it isn't unAmerican. I'm sorry if that was vague, but I didn't contradict myself.

"I don't believe I said that terrorism can't destroy us quickly (unless I skimmed what I said too quickly and missed where I had said it.) I was just making the point that while terrorist acts themselves are, as in the term I used, more "black and white", a lot of the things that could destroy us from within-small robberies of our freedom-can over time make us nothing like the nation our Constitution orginally created."

Right. Another thing is, terrorism has the potential to destroy us much quicker than judicial activism can. I would say that since (and you even admit) that terrorism is more clearly defined, it makes it a much bigger threat. Since judicial activism is so undefined and minor, doesn't it seem like terrorism is a significantly greater threat? Like I've said before, terrorism is very costly when it comes to stopping it. Judicial activism can possibly be stopped by switching some Constitutional statutes. Seems pretty trivial compared to giving up all of our rights.

"Judicial activism, to me, also includes having a personal or political agenda instead of adhering to the constitution. There is probably no reasonable way to be sure of curing ourselves of it, except to wisely inform ourselves of who our justices are, and for them to be wisely chosen. Easier said than done, of course. "

Well, on most issues, adhering to the Constitution isn't really possible unless you are overturning something specifically written. In the case of imminent domain, the Constitution is pretty clear when it comes to private property and development. However, most of the time the Constitution is vague or says nothing about a subject. President Bush says he prefers judges who don't legislate from the bench, but he doesn't realize that most of the time, judges will have to do that anyway. Interpretation of the Constitution is mostly a matter of opinion. Also, as long as judges refuse to answer questions, we will have no idea whether they become an activist judge.

"So it appears we agree that saying something is a bigger threat does not make you unAmerican"

You're right, and what I've said all along is as long as you don't downplay the threat, it isn't unAmerican.

Ok, all I'm saying was that at first you said it was unAmerican to say activist judges are a bigger threat to America than terrorists...and then you said that it wasn't unAmerican, but rather, downplaying the threat of terrorism is. And as you didn't give anything about how the conservatives are downplaying the threat of terrorism-rather, some conservatives simply think judicial activism is as big of a threat as terrorism-then you would agree that it is illogical to call them unAmerican (for solely saying activist judges are just as big of a threat)like you did in your first comment, right?

"Right. Another thing is, terrorism has the potential to destroy us much quicker than judicial activism can. I would say that since (and you even admit) that terrorism is more clearly defined, it makes it a much bigger threat. Since judicial activism is so undefined and minor, doesn't it seem like terrorism is a significantly greater threat? Like I've said before, terrorism is very costly when it comes to stopping it. Judicial activism can possibly be stopped by switching some Constitutional statutes. Seems pretty trivial compared to giving up all of our rights."

See, this is where I disagree (and keep in mind I am simply talking about the decisions of the supreme court, not just judicial activism.) I think that the behind the scenes happenings are just as big of a threat-or rather, they have the potential to be-than terrorism. We are agreeing on basic points, but we're connecting them different. The fact that terrorism is defined makes it easier for a nation to see it and judge it. It makes it easier, because it is so clearly wrong in the majority of Americans' eyes, to fight it. Now, I'm not talking costs here, or that it would be as easy to defeat terrorism as it would be judicial decisions. It's just obvious that when a nation can see something and generally agree it is wrong, the spirit to fight it is there.

On the other hand, judicial decisions can occur without much attention, and without much input from the majority of Americans. For instance, most recently-the topic of eminent domain. Now, that is just one small issue and of course will not contribute to hurting America a whole lot in the long run. But slowly but surely our rights can slowly be depleted. The government legislation itself and judicial rulings are not so defined, so it's hard to say at the time whether or not it's right or wrong. But then twenty years down the road we might look back and see the slow trend of the draining of our rights. For instance, you probably disagree with most of the patriot act. (I'm not looking to debate it, fyi.) But those kind of decisions that go on during a not-so-clear period and when we're not sure what to do are what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to say I disagree with its intentions, but I figure it is a topic you can relate to.

The slow gain of government's presence in our lives is not defined, but that's what makes it worse. In some cases, decisions that hurt our rights are debatable, whereas acts of terrorism generally aren't debatable because the general consensus is that they are horrible and wrong. Do you see what I'm saying?

And yes-defeating these things can very well be easier than defeating terrorism. But there are those things that are behind the scenes, or biased in the media, so that the nation can't see them and say they are wrong at the time.

Indeed many issues are matters of interpretation...ok I completely forgot where I was going with that, so I'm going to just shut my trap. But it was just to add what you were saying-no disagreements, really.

I'll post on your site too-I mean to, I just forget sometimes.