|
Actually, some conservatives talk about Souter being a disappointment, but he is a constitutionalist, so I don't understand their stance. Sandra Oconner is not much different...a long history of conservativism, but a real sense of the Constitution.
This "conservative" court has backed individual rights more strongly than the Warren court. Hey...that is what conservatives do.
Miers was not qualified...we need jurists...folks who have had to deliberate, by themselves, on important issues. We need to see that track record.
Do you realize that Congress could call a national referendum to abolish Roe Vs. Wade? They would lose. When push comes to shove, the majority do not want government there.
We need to appoint intellect and commitment to that most important document, not anyone with a pre-concieved notion.
As a Senator in Arizona, Sandra Day opposed abortion rights...things were definately different when she was on THE COURT. In fact, my Mom recounted a couple of telephone conversations between her and Ms. Oconner (they worked together a lot in the Arizona Legislature), and it was clear that Sandra knew the difference between making law and making history.
Bush needs to appoint a balanced jurist. That person will do the right thing, much as the court has done over the past several years.
If someone asked me if I would rather be a member of the Supreme Court, or President, I would reply President; that is because I could retire, for sure, after eight years.
Bush needs to get this right, and I think that he will...now.
|