I'd go with "qualified conservative," but for some reason you didn't offer that as an option.
Which is better: An "unqualified conservative or a well-qualified liberal?
I'd go with "qualified conservative," but for some reason you didn't offer that as an option.
_____________
Oh, that's right...it's my job to provide you with options. I should have consulted you first. However, I didn't see you provide me with a list of qualifications for a SCJ? You just say Miers is "unqualified."
Why?
There is no reason to doubt Harriet Miers's qualifications or conservatism. If you doubt that, please read Beldar's posts and Hugh Hewitt's posts on these matters. President Bush has made outstanding selections for Judges, probably better than President Reagan, so why should we doubt him now. By not at least waiting for the hearings, the whiners (or turncoats, or whatever term anyone likes) are doing the same thing that was done by Ted Kennedy and the other Democrats who voted against Justice Roberts: saying that they, rather than the man who won the election, should get to decide the judicial philosophy of Supreme Couret nominees. And don't suggest the problem is qualifications. Almost everyone who objects to SMU Law grad Miers would love Baylor Law grad Pricilla Owen as the nominee, but a few years on the Supreme Court of Texas and a piddly opinion on interpretation of a parental-notification statute are not worth more (and are probably worth much less)than Harriet Miers's experience as qualifications for the Supreme Court of the United States.