Replies

Whether or not she'll adhere to the Constitution is yet to be seen.

Which is why anyone who has condemned her already is an abject fool.

"Which is why anyone who has condemned her already is an abject fool."

I disagree. Anyone who was still confused about their politics in their 40s, as she was, should not be given the luxury of a lifetime appointment on the SCOTUS.

Which is why anyone who has condemned her already is an abject fool.

Foolishness can be defined as taking a needless gamble. There are well-qualified nominees Bush could have put forward whose conservative commitment to strict constructionism is well-known. We have no such assurance with Miers. Bush is gambling with our future and the futures of our children and grandchildren needlessly.

Why take this chance? I'll tell you why. He has no fight left in him. He's letting Schumer and Reid run roughshod over him.

Speaking of Reid, I didn't support Bush for president just so he could capitulate and let the senior senator from Searchlight Nevada choose O'Connor's replacement.

It was a dumb move.

"Which is why anyone who has condemned her already is an abject fool."

I agree that we should withhold judgment at this point.

Of course, I understand where others are coming from. We've waited (and worked) for decades to be in the position we're in now: a Republican in the WH and GOP control of the Senate. Wouldn't it be great to have a fight about judicial philosophy, especially one that we're likely to win? Don't we at least deserve the kind of debate that would have been generated by nominating a Luttig, Sykes, Owens, Brown, etc.?

I practice law in San Francisco, surrounded by Harvard/Stanford/Yale/Berkeley-educated, left-leaning, Bush haters. I also happen to be an evangelical Christian. I would love for my colleagues to see again that their views are those of a mere minority. The nomination and confirmation of an obvious record-conservative would have been so glorious.

Still, what matters most to me (and, perhaps, to most of us) is the result: O'Connor's seat filled by a constitutionalist with a healthy respect for the separation of powers doctrine, who just happens to be pro-life, pro-family, and pro-America. I want someone smart, tough, thoughtful and focused. She should be a good communicator, fair-minded, and committed to listening to both sides in each case.

Do I think a Justice Miers would be that person? I don't know. It bothers me that I don't know. It bothers me that I'm having to "just trust" the President on this.

But Justice Miers could be exactly the person I want. Given that, I am willing to wait, to see how the confirmation hearings go, and, if she's confirmed, to see how she rules on important cases.

If I may be so bold, I propose that we all take a deep breath. Be frustrated that George Bush is so stubborn, so loyal and so not following our script. Be disappointed that the nominee is such an unknown. Fine. But let's not abandon the President or the GOP quite yet.

We've labored too hard to grow a conservative majority in this country to let our frustration divide us over a judicial nominee that may turn out to be (almost) everything we want her to be.