Your turn.
For it to be ez's turn to answer, wouldn't you have actually had to respond to him when he asked you to prove that Miers was not in the mold of Scalia and Thomas? You never did list any facts that prove she doesn't share the same legal or ideological philosophy that Thomas and Scalia do.
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.