Confused by their own code

I've written a little about this already so it's nice to see my predictions coming true. Harriet Miers is quite an enigma but Republicans have fallen into a trap of their own making with regards to her. For the past 5-10 years the Republicans have been attacking judges in a subtle way. Republicans have consistently pushed the idea that "activist" judges are ruling against them. They have created the idea that if all judges ruled according a strict interpretation of the constitution and the law then they would rule in favor of Republican ideals. I'm willing to concede that this is true more often then not. But it's not quite the landslide that people might expect.

The Oregon case heard yesterday is a pretty good example. The case really revolves around questions of state rights vs. federal rights and whether or not the AG can make rulings on enforcement that are arbitrary. The legality of it has very little to do with assisted suicide (Ashcroft's motivation notwithstanding). A federalist (like I believe that John Roberts is) will likely rule in favor of the state. A constitutionalist will be quite torn but (I believe) will probably rule in favor of the federal government. A republican will be torn, but will likely rule in favor of the federal government (couching their ruling in terms that strengthen federal law enforcement rather than overall federal powers). A democrat will be ecstatic to rule against the federal government. So there's a whole spectrum of how these things can be viewed.

I believe Bush is appointing strict constructionists (in his words). I believe that political ideology is (rightfully so) a secondary consideration. He would prefer to appoint a liberal, who he was certain of judicial restraint, rather than a conservative whom he knew would be a judicial activist.