CNN.com wrote:
GOP Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn of Texas, who support Miers, say the questionnaire was written while Miers was a politician, and she would leave political decisions behind as a judge. "That information is interesting, and some people may draw their own conclusions from it, but I believe that Harriet Miers will be the type of judge who will not attempt to pursue a personal or political agenda from the bench," Cornyn said.
That view was echoed at the White House where presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said that Miers answered the questions as a candidate during the course of a campaign.
"The role of a judge is very different from the role of a candidate or a political officeholder," McClellan said.
"Harriet Miers, just like Chief Justice (John) Roberts, recognizes that personal views and ideology and religion have no role to play when it comes to making decisions on the bench," he said. "Your role as a judge is to look at all the facts and look at the law and apply the law to that case."
That view was echoed at the White House where presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said that Miers answered the questions as a candidate during the course of a campaign.
"The role of a judge is very different from the role of a candidate or a political officeholder," McClellan said.
"Harriet Miers, just like Chief Justice (John) Roberts, recognizes that personal views and ideology and religion have no role to play when it comes to making decisions on the bench," he said. "Your role as a judge is to look at all the facts and look at the law and apply the law to that case."
Is the understanding here that only judges hailing from the Right are able to leave their "personal views and ideology" behind when they take the bench and all the rest are liberal activist judges? Judges with a liberal bent are unable to "look at the law and apply the law to that case"?
I understand that DeLay needs to start painting the prosecutor, judge, baliff, court clerk, etc as evil "partisan fanatics" now so if, Heavens forbid, it turns out he did break the law he can blame everyone but himself (see: Plame Investigation) but it'd be nice if we could arrive at some sort of a standard here.
Is this the new era of how Republicans react to the law? Smear the justice system rather than let the case stand on its merits?