I agree that we have no cards to play. However, I think the grumbling is serving an important purpose. In the end, she must be confirmed. It's the pitiful truth.
Ping to vanity
Isn't it most likely that by picking an extremely well-known confidant like Miers, Bush is avoiding the mistake made by his father when he picked an unknown like Souter?
As I mentioned before, I think that the successor to Miers if her nomination goes down in flames would be most likely Mike McConnell, followed by Edith Clement. They would need someone with great intellectual stature, well-regarded by conservatives but without a RvW paper trail, or anything else comparably insurmountable, who is also well-respected and well-liked across the aisle. McConnell fits the description perfectly. So long as they're not set on a 'diversity' pick, McConnell is the one.
If they are set on an AA justice, then Edith Clement fits the bill. JRB and PO and EHJ have too long of a paper trail, and would cause a firestorm over RvW.
To avoid confusion, I am speaking of Mike McConnell the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge, not Senator Mitch McConnell.
On the other hand if she does not do well and seems not up to the task at hand folks like me, who are willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt based on his almost uniformly excellent appointments to the appellate courts, will join forces with the our brethren on the right and demand she is banished to Texas.
At that point I think Bush has no choice but to say "charge" and let the chips fall where they may.
Thanks for the link to your essay.
I do, however, believe that you and a whole lot of other folks around here (and in Washington DC for that matter) GREATLY underestimate the passion of those of us in the conservative mob and the wrath that can we can unleash when we are messed with.
An insightful vanity.
I agree that there's not much to be done. I think she'll be confirmed, except on the pipe dream's chance she withdraws. Once Bush made the less-than-ideal (shall we say) nomination, he consigned GOP senators to vote for her. But I think that's exactly why we should make a stink about it, pound on W's thick skull a bit and maybe he'll get the message. No, it's not subtle or graceful, but I've never been big on either.
I think this was a lousy pick, but once it was made she should be confirmed unless she performs horribly during the confirmation hearings (and I highly doubt that will occur).
1) You assume that both Bush and Miers care about settling petty scores about as much as they care about the judiciary. Maybe that is true, but very possibly it isn't. If it is true, wow.
2) This is a poker game. 2 of the players are conservatives and Bush. Neither can count on the other acting rationally. Both should think about that. Your point is that conservatives need to think about how Bush reacts. True. But it is at least equally true that Bush needs to, and certainly would, think about how conservatives react. How do conservatives respond if to settle a silly issue Bush nominates someone worse than Miers from the conservative perspective? How should they? Would Bush really put silliness ahead of both the judiciary and parts of his other agenda as well? Now that would be irrational. And since that is the kind of calculation that Bush will be making, conservatives can know that this is the kind of calculation he would have to make, and act accordingly.
3) If Miers is defeated, I suspect it will be because of liberals worried about both her qualifications and Roe, institutionalists worried she isn't SC material, and conservatives. She probably cannot be defeated without assists from all 3.
4) The universe of people who could be considered for the SC seems to be pretty large. He can thread the needle with one of them. To take one: Clement would probably follow most of his views on the court, be very likely to be confirmed, please his base, and help him politically more than do harm.