[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


How about they wanted to know WHERE she STOOD - on ANYTHING -

[/ QUOTE ]

In a perfect world (ha ha ha), where a judge stands on anything is not relevant. A judge should rule on the law, regardless of his or her beliefs, and regardless of the outcome. Many honest and intelligent people agree with the outcome of Roe v. Wade, but admit that it is bad law.

I have heard several screwball Senators recently bemoaning Supreme Court decisions "in favor" of large corporations and "against" the poor, the downtrodden, the working class, etc. That's not the Court's problem, or business. The problem is the inept lawmaking of our esteem legislators who cannot write a law that's constitutional. The Court doesn't (or at least shouldn't) strike down laws because of who "wins" or "loses", but because they are not constitutional. Partisans on both sides of the aisle seem to have a great deal of dificulty with this concept.

The reason to see work product from Harriet Miers is to see if she is at least a competent lawyer, and that she can think and correctly interpret the law. Her position on issues does not matter unless she lets those positions prejudice her decisions. There was no such documentation available on Miers, one way or the other. There was no indication that she was anything but an efficient manager, and a FOW (Friend of W). If W chooses not to present evidence of her legal abilities, that is his choice. And his attorney (whoever that might be [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] ) should have advised him of that potential problem before the nomination. W stuck her out there unsupported, and said trust me. Didn't work.

Roberts got confirmed without presenting his stands on various issues because he made a convincing case that his positions on issues would not affect his interpretation of the law, and because there was an overabundance of evidence and documentation that he was highly qualified.