Replies

"But why must we all wonder what kind of justice she's going to be when Bush could have done the right thing by appointing a known conservative-constructioninst that requires no divining and would have brought another battle for the lefties to lose in this, our culture war?"

The "why" is probably due to the lack of spine already shown by the Senate Republicans in the "Gang of 14" on appellate court nominees. Bush doesn't want to have to nominate another Anthony Kennedy after losing confirmation battles over Edith Jones and Janice Rogers Brown because of the GOP nervous nellies in the Senate.

Personally, I want all-out war with the Democrats, and I'm not happy with the Miers nomination because of the fear of the unknown, the "Souter factor". But I will be satisfied if Miers turns out to be a strict constructionist ala Scalia and Thomas, regardless of her paper trail and lack of judicial experience. If she is not a strict constructionist, then "W" will have had his "Read my lips: no new taxes" moment that he has so desperately tried to avoid.

A former insider who worked on the Senate committee that vetted nominees told me this:

On a scale of 1 to 10 Miers is a "2".

Miers in Bush's Homer Thornberry - who is that? - the SCOTUS nominee from Texas who LBJ tried to appoint on his way out of office. Old crony and US Rep who replaced him.

Lack of will for a fight caused this result.

"If she is not a strict constructionist, then "W" will have had his "Read my lips: no new taxes" moment that he has so desperately tried to avoid."

He gets to be derided by his own party/country for the rest of his life. Meanwhile, we all get a Ms. Souter for about 30 some odd years. We still get the short end of that stick.