…unless by ” strict constructionist,” they mean interpretation of the Constitution by self-serving whim. Hey! That’s how i interpret “strict constructionist” too! That’s not any different from Scalia and Thomas, but that’s not the point of this post.
On October 4th, Bush said, “She shares my philosophy that judges should strictly interpret the laws and the Constitution of the United States and not legislate from the bench.” He added that her philosophy won’t change.
When she was acting as his lawyer in 2000, was her philosophy the same as it is now?
The Wall Street Journal points out that in the turmoil of the 2000 election, Miers acted as counsel in Jones v. Bush, in which three Texas voters filed suit arguing that Bush and Cheney could not run on the same ticket in Texas as they were both inhabitants of Texas, in violation of the Twelfth Amendment. Cheney insisted that he was a resident of Wyoming, even though his wife remain declared a resident of Texas. Miers and her co-counsel argued that the law is archaic and not suited for modern times.
“Strict constructionist,” eh?