I don't know how to prove a negative.
"You never did list any facts that prove she doesn't share the same legal or ideological philosophy that Thomas and Scalia do."
Show me some cases she's decided and opinions she's issued, then I might be able to "prove" it one way or the other. She has no track record of cases like Scalia and Thomas. Her statements, remarks and observations are useful but are merely like dicta, not the same thing as judgments.
Your comments in #356/#357 show you have put in a great deal of thought and analysis on this issue. Some of your points are good ones and well argued. The one significant point I would caution you about is attempting to paint conservatives as "divisive", disloyal to Bush and likely to be the cause of the destruction of the conservative majority. You may feel this way, but that doesn't mean you are right. In fact, you are wrong. Conservatives have every right, indeed are obligated, to question the wisdom of this particular nomination. Remember, it was Bush who promised to appoint someone in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Many of us question whether he has in fact done so. Under the circumstances, it is not unreasonable to do so. Unfortunately, for "trust me" to work, Bush would have to have a far better conservative record than he does. That is not the fault of conservatives.
One thing I would point out in response to your last post is that back when Thomas was put up, he wasn't the "Clarence Thomas" then, that he is now, so really, there wasn't any evidence that he was going to be another Scalia. If I recall correctly, pubs pretty well knew what kind of Justice Scalia would be. I think if Bush 41 had nominated him, Scalie would have been in trouble on the floor. It's one thing for Scalia to get 90 some odd votes on the floor of the Senate when Reagan won 49 states in 84', it would have a different story I think, since Bush didn't spank ducaca like Reagan spanked mondull. That's my big thing with all the conservatives on radio and TV and the net, like her, blasting Miers before the hearings even show what she has to say. That's like going hunting and blasting and leveling the forest because someone thinks they saw a squirrel in a tree from 100 yards. Not wise.
As to the infighting, it's not so much that I think it's divisive beyond full repair right now, but I always tend to think in terms of next week and month, not right now, and I can see this strife, if it continues, as having a MAJOR negative impact on the national conservative movement if people don't tone the rhetoric down. And it’s not so much that there is so much strife against Bush specifically that worries me, it’s any Republican leader in general. Again, I tend to think in tomorrows, not todays. And Bush’s political career is over, he can run again and I’m more thinking in the frame of mind of who’s next to take the mantle, while still knowing how important it is to get judges, fight the war, keep taxes down, cut the budget, etc, NOW, not next year. What worries me is that so many conservatives have so easily become so vocal and against a Republican President, with a total lack of real hard evidence to substantiate that strong vocal opposition. I am very big on not acting rashly without the benefit of hard facts. And so far, there is still a total lack of facts to substantiate this divisive conservative split where so many have come out against Miers, attacking those conservatives that support her or are just waiting to have real reason to not support her. That is just totally unwise, firing into the night, because of what someone thinks they saw. As I've stated clearly before there are several things I want that Bush hasn’t delivered, but when it comes to W. Bush, he has been 100% spot on golden when it comes to his judicial nominees. Even better than Reagan. So it is not logical that Miers, a person he actually knows personally for many years, will be a dud that will betray the conservative ideal. There is that part of me that is scared of being burned by a suterite, but until I have some evidence that it may happen with Miers, something tangible, something I can see and prove, I just don’t think it’s at all prudent to break from faith with Bush, for the sake of the conservative majority and it’s continued need for strength against the liberals, because I’m scared of what may happen with no facts to back up action and words against her. That is why this conservative divide bothers me so much and I really believe it needs to stop. Every day it goes on, the harder it will be to patch and move past and still gain seats in the House and Senate in ’06.
It also occurred to me this morning about the people complaining about Miers. I wonder how many of them were just one year ago demanding that democrats fold and give Bush the right to nominate for the judiciary who he wanted, that there were consequences to a President being elected and re-elected, so on and so forth. And now, some or many of those same people are saying that Bush doesn't have the right to nominate who he wants because some of the base doesn't like her. I can't quite get that to jibe with the logic used last year when it was the democrats opposing nominees. Miers isn’t who I would have picked. I’d of picked Pricilla Owens first and Edith Jones second and Michael Luddig third, but then, I am not the President, W. Bush is, and over 55 million people didn’t vote for me last November, they voted for W. Bush, and I don’t know Miers, W. Bush does, and he hasn’t failed in putting up firm hard conservative strict constructionist judges. That cannot be ignored or brushed aside in this argument. I also wonder what it’s going to be like during committee when all the democrats rip into her and her beliefs and stands she’s taken on positions, and if all the anti-Miers conservatives are going to side with the liberals in destroying her, or if it will dawn on them that she really is a conservative. The fight against Miers put on by the libs is shaping up to be nastier than Roberts. I really wish that Bush would waive lawyer / client privilege and present to the public all the opinions and papers she’s written for him the past ten years. Oh what a mess. Why couldn’t Bush just have nominated Precilla Owens or Edith Jones. I can only come back to the fact that he knows Miers very well for many years, and doesn’t know either of them, and he is determined beyond all else to NOT get burned by nominating a supposed great conservative that he doesn’t know from Adam, like his father did with Suiter, and Reagan did with o’conner and kennedy. That’s what I keep coming back to. Anyway, that's more what I think about all this and why I said what I did in those two posts you mentioned.