Is Meirs just a sacrifice?

[rlev1223]

It seems to me that this this could be a red herring nomination so the
Dem groups and Senators blow their wad opposing it --- it gets beaten or withdrawn
and then something worse .. Brown?-- with the meme that "Dems just oppose everything"

Bush actually has almost a year to finish this...any cases heard by O'Connor wouldn't be voted on until later in the session and will probably have to be re-heard with the new Justice.

Thoughts?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. No, because I don't see a lot to oppose thus far.

If anything, she'll get turned down by Repugs.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. No. Dems are going to roll over for a reverse Souter

While the Cons are screaming bloody murder, Dems are going to be saying, "Hey, she must be great then!" And this woman will be MORE extremist than Scalia OR Thomas.

I still don't understand what the pundits are so outraged about! She is completely in-line with Bush! What more do they want?

[papau]

3. WSJ implies Miers anti-abortion and a Scalia "originalist"

So is Ms. Miers's not just a judicial restraint/limited role of the court/judicial conservative, she is a Scalia anti-abortion "orginalist" with no respect for precedent?

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1128351923853585...

<snip>Marvin Olasky, a journalism professor and the father of the "compassionate conservative" movement, posted a series of excerpts from interviews with friends and acquaintances of Harriet Miers he conducted before the official nomination. One of the interviews was with Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, who said he has known Ms. Miers for 30 years and described their relationship as "very close friends."

Quoting Mr. Hecht on Ms. Miers's judicial philosophy: "She's an originalist -- that's the way she takes the Bible," and that's her approach to the Constitution as well -- "Originalist -- it means what it says."

Mr. Hecht says he and Ms. Miers "went to two or three pro-life dinners in the late 80s or early 90s."<snip>


http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa022701a.htm
Scalia on the Constitution


U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia explained and defended his "originalist" approach to constitutional interpretation in a closing address to a Princeton University conference on James Madison, fourth president and framer of the Constitution.

Speaking on Feb. 23, 2001, Justice Scalia explained that he, like Madison, interprets the Constitution according to the "common sense" meaning and definition of the document's words at the time they were written. An opposite approach, Scalia suggested from that applied by Justices who believe the Constitution "changes from age to age in order to meet the needs of a changing society."

Scalia criticized the second approach, saying that it too often results in crafting subjective interpretations of the Constitution to address issues that could and should be handled by Congress.

Calling his view of the Constitution an "originalist" view, Scalia conceded it often places him in a position of supporting laws that do not seem to make sense.

"It may well be stupid, but if it's stupid, pass a law!" he said. "Don't think the originalist interpretation constrains you. To the contrary. My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You want a right to abortion? Create it the way all rights are created in a democracy, pass a law. The death penalty? Pass a law. That's flexibility

<snip>