Here are two conservative pundits talking about Harriet Miers:
The most useful way of discovering a nominee's views is through "litmus tests." One question would yield the maximum information about a nominee's judicial philosophy (without requiring a commitment as to any future ruling): "What do you think of Roe vs. Wade"? The answer could explain her theory of constitutional interpretation, her views on the judicial invention of rights not set forth in the Constitution, her views on when courts should follow precedent, and her views about the judiciary's role in our constitutional system.
I know it isn't anything new to the readers of this blog that the "right" feels this way about our Constitutional rights and it isn't anything new to this blog's readers that there's this little thing in the Constitution known as the Ninth Amendment which reads:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This Amendment sounds to me, as it has sounded to many observers, that the Framers didn't want a specific Bill of Rights to result in those rights not being specified being subjected to government infringement. This was in fact one of James Madison's stated reservations about inserting a Bill of Rights in the Constitution.
But as if you didn't require any further confirmation, carefully consider this statement by our conservative bretheran once again:
"...the judicial invention of rights not set forth in the Constitution..."
Conservatives are again making plain their antipathy towards freedom, individuality and human rights. They don't like "rights". Rights from whom? Themselves, the government, the ruling powers. They don't believe the individual is sovereign over her or himself. That is the thrust of their ideology and "movement". And I would submit that this issue, more than any other, including wars, budgets, corruption and cronyism, is the most important matter facing the electorate in 2006 and beyond.