GOP Evangelicals vs. GOP Intellectuals

She is not a known judicial quantity based on what church she goes to. Ultimately, the article is wrong: conservatives aren't unpersuaded about either because of either what church they go to or how much they've written but the lack of evidence as to what they believe on issues that are important to conservatives. There are a lot of Christian conservatives here who are excited about Michael McConnell not because of whether he is an evangelical but because he is a known quantity on certain constitutional issues. It's not the intellectual strength but what he has done with that strength.

 

And your only evidence is that she goes to an evangelical church?? So she has been helping the President pick nominees that she thinks the Right will be impressed with (I would then have to question her judgement about Robert--so far). If it has been good strategy at all, what does that make her but a good strategist?

It appears that the naysayers on the Right believe that she has been helping the president choose nominees with whom she is in major disagreement.

We don't know if she is in disagreement or not because we don't know where she or her suggested nominees stand. That's the whole point. The other point is still that I'm puzzled why you are disappointed that conservatives are concerned about this. Until she or Roberts prove themselves on the Court, many are still hopeful but cautious or doubtful. Good strategy does not constitute good policy. I hope that your confidence becomes mine eventually. You just got through saying that we should at least wait until they're on the Court before criticizing them. I haven't criticized them (though I have criticized the President for not picking more proven nominees), I simply remain doubtful and hopeful and anxiously await their performance on the Court.

 

I was thinking of Supreme Court nominees and had forgotten about appellate court choices. Thank you, you're right about that. That may be evidence of simply good strategizing but your point is well taken. It's a good point but is that all you've got as to where she stands? Any idea where she stands on Establishment clause issues, the Lemon test? Whether Roe v. Wade is good law? Or Kelo (the recent eminent domain case)? Any idea where she stands on the constitutionality of the death penalty? Affirmative action? Second amendment rights? Homosexual marriage? The exclusionary rule? Even one of these issues? Why is it so wrong for conservatives to be concerned about this? Liberals are up in arms and beside themselves over any choices by President Bush, but when conservatives express even concern over the proper tilt that is improper or illogical?

 

OK, fair enough. And until she proves herself by her performance on the court I will be, as I said before with Roberts, hopeful but skeptical. But I do have to ask, what in your opinion makes a justice fit or not fit?

 

I don't see the need to worry about this lady's confirmation. Bush did this. It has caused open complaints from the so-called intellectual conservatives. But I could care less if she fails in the Senate so I see not need to rush to her defense. Christians have spoken to support her. Now the battle belongs to Bush who nominated her. I think that the main reason that Bush nominated her is that he thought that he could get her confirmed.

What amuses me is that Catholic such as Laura Ingraham just got Roberts who they were tickled to death with. Now when faced with a Protestant of deep Christian conviction, Laura Ingraham does not think that Miers is good enough.

So much for the faithfulness of our Catholic allies no matter how big a paycheck they cash from what used to be a totally Protestant country. Catholics will kill the goose that laid the golden egg because it is not a Catholic goose.

 

That is actually a good point, CMG.

Laura Ingraham has no credibility.

When was the US a "totally Protestant Country?" Are you referring to the period of time before the Catholics settled in Maryland?

Regards,
BiR

 

She is probably a trojan horse. If Bush doesn't have a deal with her then he is stupid.

 

If he does have a deal with her then he is stupid.

 

Anyone, regardless of politics, who is fighting against breast cancer has loads of credibility with me. </font>[/QUOTE]Ken, that is twice now that you have referenced her breast cancer. Although this is very tragic and my heart goes out to her, Laura Ingraham has no credibility.

Regards,
BiR

 

What possible effect does her having breast cancer have to do with her credibility?

 

That's fine: we disagree on many things. I still enjoy reading what you have to say.

Are you sure about that? Have you read about Laura Ingraham?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160008?is_gsa=1&final=1

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504120008?is_gsa=1&final=1

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411020008


Regards,
BiR