Replies

If she turns out to be a solid conservative, I'll be mollified, but that won't change 2 1/2 things:

(1) She got the nomination over several vastly more qualified people. I'm sure there's a game theory element to it, but I find it quite hard to believe there were no darkhorse candidates with even basic qualifications in constitutional law.

(1a) This is the worst possible issue to be defeatist on. I don't trust the Republican senators either. But of all possible fights to pick, this is the one you pick. You don't just pre-emptively throw in the towel on a Supreme Court nomination.

(2) All the evidence I have of her conservative credentials is the word of a president who has not exactly been a conservative stalwart. I don't feel like committing that much blind faith to Bush these days.

So there ya go.

Being a judge does not make you more qulified to be a Justice. If that was the case the founders would have said that ONLY already seated judges can be on the SCOTUS, and they deliberately did NOT do that. And the thing that all the anti-Miers people keep missing is that she's not an unknown to him. HE KNOWS HER AND HAS KNOWN HER FOR YEARS, and he has not put up ONE SINGLE JUDGE that has NOT ben VERY conservative and a strict constructionist, including Roberts, and as time will show, Miers. This is all totally overlooked. Suiter and O'conner and Kennedy were judges at the time and respected and supposedly conservative, how well did that work? I'd rather have someone I know for sure that is a conservative who isn't a Judge, than someone I don't know from Adam, who I'm told is a good conservative that IS judge, but I don't know that for sure myself.

Sorry, but I prefer to make decisions based on what I know for fact from my own experience, not what I'm told from other people. And that's what Bush has done. He made a decision based on what he KNOWS for a fact, not what someone else told him.