Strict Constructionist?

Yeah, the rightwing wants judges who are so-called strict constructionists on the court, intent-of-the-founders and all that crap. Unless it suits them to act otherwise.

Case in point: The Wall Street Journal (!) has a story on a little known-incident during the 2000 Presidential Race that sheds some light on Harriet Miers' judicial philosophy.

At the time I wondered how Baby Doc and The Dickster could be on the ticket together because I remembered that there was something in the Constitution that precluded a president and vice-president being from the same state. Turns out it was that pesky 12th Amendment, the one that sets up rules for the Electoral College, that says that the electors can't vote for candidates for these offices who are both from the same state as themselves.

So there was that little problem of Incurious George being the governor, so the argument couldn't be made that he wasn't from Texas, and the inconvenient fact that Dick Cheney was living in Dallas, with a job in Dallas, owning a house in Dallas, being registered to vote in Dallas, having a Texas driver's license which allowed him to drive his cars registered in Texas, and paying taxes in Texas. So the electoral votes from Texas wouldn't -- couldn't -- be counted. That was the basis of an obscure lawsuit, Jones v. Bush, filed by three Texas voters.

What to do? What to do?

Well, enter Harriet Miers, acting as defense attorney, who skillfully dodged all those important Constitutional issues by having Cheney say that he was really a citizen of Wyoming. With the connivance of Republican-appointed judges, the lawsuit was thrown out, both at the state level and on appeal at the Fifth Circuit.

Case closed, and strict constructionist my ass. Like I say, only when it suits them. The arrogance and hypocrisy of the Repugnican party knows no end.