Political leanings are just as irrelevant as religious beliefs if a justice is doing what the oath requires. Give me a liberal who’s a judicial conservative and, these days, an “originalist” (it’s been a while since we had the political liberal/judicial conservative combo, but such a thing is possible: Felix Frankfurter and Robert Jackson, to name two; Robert Bork would’ve been one, and maybe it’s not too late for that).

I don’t want to hear whether the nominee is an evangelical Christian, or a conservative, or a liberal. Mischaracterized “left turns” on the court are not left turns at all; rather, they are predictable applications by justices of the very same judicial philosophy they had when they were appointed — you know, fabricationism. Once a fabricationist always a fabricationist. Only it’s hard for some political conservatives to see it at the same time they’re hoping that one day the constitutional law fabricated by the justices will coincide with their own policy preferences. Just listen to some people who are looking for assurances that Miers is “pro-life.” Don’t you think they’d be popping champagne corks (non-alcoholic, of course) if the Court held that a fetus is a person entitled to equal protection?

Spotting the warning signs for these supposed left turns is something Hugh Hewitt is just wrong on, imo. The difference between Scalia/Thomas and Souter/Kennedy/O’Connor isn’t that the former spent time in DC on the front lines of the culture war (as did HH — probably why he thinks that’s important) and the latter did not; it’s that the former are originalists and the latter merely fall somewhere within that very broad, variable category known as “conservative.”

As long as we continue to fall for the “conservative” head-fake, we will continue to be distracted from the meaningful by our focus on the irrelevant, and will therefore continue to be disappointed and unpleasantly surprised.

Only kidding (I hope).

As Patterico shows, Justice Stewart supported non-textual rights [and] embraced judicial legislation. If Harriet’s the reincarnation of Potter, the President broke his promise. Hugh Hewitt’s advocacy is the best evidence yet Hewitt’s wrong.

I don’t think the Meirs pick forces the Dems to do anything but sit back and watch the trouble brew. Are they organized enough to take advantage?

Did Potter Stewart look at abortion this way to level the field (between the poor and rich) or to make a judgement on abortion?

No More Potter Stewarts!

I agree. Xrlq for Supreme Court Justice!

Many people have also been stating that the White House has been inept in advancing this nominee but I do not see any evidence that the confirmation is in doubt. Bush has made over a hundred nominations over his terms, and EVERY one of them has been …