I don't assume that a moderate position must always be correct, but that it is almost always more prudent than the extremes. It gives one room to move in either direction as the circumstances dictate. Extreme positions tend to be dogmatic rather than pragmatic. Your two examples do not represent opposite extremes, only two flavors of one extreme. Nazis are by definition fascist right-wing extremists. A moderate position would certainly be to the left of Nazis but to the right of communists, their polar opposite. Which is exactly where America stood at the time--in the pragmatic middle.
At first I was dissapointed at Bush's appointment since I wanted Janice Rogers Brown and because I don't know much about her. As I started thinking about it though, I came to the conclusion that Bush isn't an idiot, I know some may disagree but you don't become President by being an idiot, and he wanted to nominate a strict constructionist. Bush may have effed up with his choice, since no one really knows how she will decide court cases, if she will be a strict constructionist, or a fan of judicial activism since she has no paper trail. I pray that she doesn't turn into another David Souter but no one knows. I am going to be earnestly watching the confirmation hearings even moreso than I did with Roberts because I could pretty much guess his answers to everything. Only time will tell if this was a good choice but no one is above making a mistake, Bush included.
A little sidenote about partisanship in the Senate. In 1986 when Antonin Scalia was nominated for the SCOTUS he was confirmed with a vote of 98-0. Today he is widely hated and criticized by the left and would probably be filibustered if he was nominated for the Chief Justice spot or just being nominated to the SCOTUS for the first time.
Her resume looks light for a justice. She not only has never had any judicial experience, she has never even presented before an appelate or supreme court (unlike Rehnquist). She is not an expert on appelate law. She does not have a degree from a top law school. She offers no official record upon which to judge her. Her resume is excellent for a political lawyer, of course.
Just imagine if there is some truth to some of THIS stuff! Woo boy, I don't know WHAT the Republican loyalists will think about it!!! GAY RIGHTS IN THE SCOTUS!!! http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1112940,00.html In her 1989 run for Dallas City Council, Harriet Miers filled out a questionnaire from the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas, where she indicated her support for full civil rights for gays and lesbians and backed AIDS education programs for the city of Dallas...
Time out, read the whole form below. I don't see anything wrong with her answers. http://www.time.com/time/daily/docs/miersquest.pdf
My problem with her answers is that they're contradictory (the first and second.) Gay/Lesbians should have the same civil rights, but their private sexual behavior should remain criminal?
