In a previous post here I questioned if Harriet Miers is the best qualified for nomination to the US Supreme Court. See: Bush Nominates Harriet Miers to Supreme Court. Was She the Best Available?

Since then the response from Conservative circles has been mixed, although it seems a slight majority are not fully comfortable with Harriet Miers’ nomination. Now it appears that some Liberals are trying to fan the flames so Conservatives continue their attacks, but the information given is suspect.

Today the top headline on The Drudge Report for the early part of the day was:

This headline links to this Time.com article which includes the following in the second paragraph:

The linked questionnaire tells a much different tale from the Matt Drudge headline and the statement made in the Time.com article.

In the questionnaire the first question does ask:

And her response is “YES“.

Just running with this single question and response is the basis for the news headlines. HOWEVER, looking at all the questions in total offers a much different picture. One that Liberals are sure to dislike, although it should bring some comfort to Conservatives.

The next question:

This is the code that the US Supreme Court struck down and Liberals hated. Well given the headlines you might think Ms. Miers answered in the affirmative to this question, BUT HER ANSWER WAS “NO”!!!!

This woman is more conservative than she’s getting credit for!

2nd part of the same question:

Her answer again was a “NO“!

In question 3 she does say she feels there should be funding for AIDS education and patient support services and increasing funding assuming there is a need and resources. This is about as Liberal as she gets in the entire questionnaire. Here is question #3 and her responses:

Her response “YES“.

Her response:

I am including all of question 4 in the quote box below with her response in bold type. This is what we want to hear!

She wants the legislature to resolve these issues!

Next question and again a rightfully good and Conservative response. I am including all of question 5 in the quote box below with her response in bold type.

So there! She feels an employer should be able to consider all relevant factors. Depending on the job an employer should be able to decide. She fells via her statement that for some jobs maybe the City will say yes and others no, but an employer should be able to decide without blanket rules for or against!

But the most telling response was to the question of whether she is seeking this group’s endorsement:

So she would like a legislature to decide on matters of discrimination, supports state morality laws, feels gays should have the same civil rights, but employers should be able to decide who they want to hire considering all factors deemed relevant. Plus she’s OK with funding for AIDS education and and patient support services. This should be the real headline. And although she’s not a “firebrand” Conservative she is fairly Conservative. I’d say she does represent the backing her church friends have given her of being a Christian with moral values.

So there are the facts. Minus the spin!

update (10/4/2005 9:35PM ET): The more we learn the more comfort Conservatives should have. Maybe the Conservatives that remain upset are just offering cover fire for Miers to be nominated with little rebuff from Liberals 😀 . (OK at least it’s a nice theory to wish for 😀 !)

Check out this good news! Miers said to be on `extreme end’ of pro-life movement

Also, St. Wendeler from Another Rovian Conspiracy has some excellent points.

It seems Conservatives are deciding just how strongly they should stand up for Ms. Miers. Having seen more facts I am now of the opinion that we should stand strongly in support of her. Although she’s not who ANYBODY was seriously thinking would be the best and most qualified choice (except the President of course), she is the pick and she is suitable for the job and our endorsement.