Miers Withdraws

I'm all for it. Let's see some liberal senator beat Strom Thurmond's record on reading the DC phone book on the Senate floor!

Do you think he's going to go with Brown or back to Texas for Priscilla Owen? Owen has more time as a judge. Brown has about 2 months. They are both unacceptable to the extreme left, but Owen received endorsement from every Texas paper (including the liberal Austin paper). I still think he wants to put a woman on the bench.

I think Lindsey Graham is still an outside option. There's a Republican governor in S.C., so his seat would still be filled by a Republican. That would be an easy choice if Bush doesn't want a fight. I like Graham, but I would love to see a fight.

Preachings good. Prayer will be good. Calling senators and writing letters to the editors of the USA today, Times and etc. would help. This will be a big fight. They might consider finding a really good conservative from a state with two Democrats so they will support them. We will lose 4 or 5 republicans. Even the woman Judge from Louisiana would be good.

PF it's nice to see you on the right side of an issue. :)

Michigan affirmative action case rings a bell, Foley

striking down McCain-Feingold would be good too.

and I think Cali should be able to have medical marijuana if they want.

I wonder what kind of rift this will make between Bush and Senate Republicans. Another loser in this is Bill Frist. Undoubtedly, Miers had to be approved by the Majority Leader before she was even selected. Bush would never have nominated her without his support. Frist neglected to rein in Republicans from criticizing the appointment. This never would have happened with Bob Dole calling the shots in the Senate. Miers would at least have made it to a full Senate vote.

I'm a Democrat, but I'm also something of a constructionist. I wouldn't mind seeing more things left up to the states. But I have trouble reconciling that with most of the decisions from the Civil Rights era. Is Mississippi deciding blacks and whites shouldn't intermarry (Loving) any different than Mississippi deciding that a married couple shouldn't have access to contraception (Griswold), or that a woman shouldn't have access to an abortion (Roe?) Can civil rights statutes barring race and sex discrimination be defended from a strict constructionist point of view? Being a white male and living in a state which respects individual liberty enough that it presumably wouldn't make abortion or contraception illegal even if the Supreme Court allowed it to, I'm a little less excitable about these issues than if I were, say, a black man or a woman living in the deep south, who was granted the rights of citizenship only by Earl Warren's court, over the objections of my neighbors. For some reason, "judicial conseratives" don't like talking about this and try to change the subject, but I think that's disingenuous. Especially when they're advocating the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice (Janice Rogers Brown) who once said that "In the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery." I'd say that "opens the door" to a discussion of the proper role of the Supreme Court in adjudicating racial issues.

I'm also discouraged that many so-called "conservatives" don't understand the concept of separating church and state. Apparently it's easy to support a religious state when your religion is in the majority, but it shows a frustrating lack of tolerance. I'd prefer that my elected representatives take care of saving my country and let me take care of saving my soul.

In consideration of all these issues, I fully supported John Roberts. He's conservative but he seems to view the Court as a passive interpreter of the Constitution, not an activist tool for ushering in a new era of Christian evangelism. I hope Bush steps up and nominates an equally qualified and responsible candidate for the O'Connor vacancy. Even conservatives should be offended when the President as much as states that evangelical Christianity was a major factor in his selection of Harriet Myers.

(Anon 3:08 again). I actually agree with you, redstate, about federal power. Mostly because I believe the endemic corruption at the federal level stems from too much power concentrated in too few people. Once you get a Tom DeLay or a Tip O'Neill who can dole out unlimited pork with no negative consequences, Washington becomes a for-profit enterprise. Since tax-cutters can cut taxes without having to be responsible for cuts in programs, and spenders can expand programs without having to be responsible for raising taxes, the fact that we end up with huge deficits and no accountability is no surprise.

At least most states have balanced-budget requirements and limited spending power (once they've raided all their pension funds, that is), which cuts back a little bit on the abuse-fest. Instead of being able to rob us all at once by contributing to a few federal campaigns, Halliburton would have to rob each of the 50 states individually. (Republicans can feel free to subtitute the unions or trial lawyers of their choice for Halliburton).

I'm also discouraged that many so-called “conservatives” don't understand the concept of separating church and state. Apparently it's easy to support a religious state when your religion is in the majority, but it shows a frustrating lack of tolerance. I'd prefer that my elected representatives take care of saving my country and let me take care of saving my soul.

--Well Anon there is no such thing as separation of Church and state in the constitution. This was added by a liberal activist court which decided to take away my personal right to free speech, which is in the Bill of Rights. I love it when someone uses the word "intolerance" when their being intolerant. As I have said before no one can force you to accept their religion that's a choice by you. But that's why it's best to have a court that follows the Law rather then the whim of the people. “I'd prefer that my elected representative”; Well I think they will try to do what you prefer if their elected.

The place to make policy changes and law is in the Congress. If you don't like a law petition your government and have it changed. If they don't change it run for office or change the people making the law. The Courts at all levels are there to decide if those rights in the constitution and bill of rights are protected. They are not there to add to the law personal things as needed to legislate from the bench.

Is there any way we can just let Geena Davis nominate this justice?

Anon 6:45--There has been no Government church like the church in Britain that people left but people were allowed to have much more freedom of religion in public in America. To say--Hence, separation of Church and State. I'm not sure on what basis you claim that separation was “added by a liberal activist court,” but the basic concept has been the law of the land for 200+ years. I say it because it's true it's only been since the ACLU started suing and liberal courts started removing prayer , the ten commandments and faith from society. You must be confused about what a lunatic fringe means a much larger number of Americans agree with me then you. I guess we know what that says about you Mr. Fringe.