Replies

"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.

She may turn out to be a reliable vote.

But there is no way she will be all that we wanted and were promised. That is, she will not become a Scalia or a Thomas. She doesn't have the intellect or the track record.

I guess it's a bit naive to think that GWB would keep to that particular campaign promise. But that, plus his utter lack of conservative bf's on his domestic agenda, are what has caused the fire to rain down today.

We can hope that she will become a reliable vote.

But there is precious little evidence of that today.

Rather than rejoicing, even the most ardent GWB fans today can only muster, at best, a "let's wait and see" attitude.

You expressed that very well. Thank you.

There is an impatience that we have because we have ALL waited so long for this nomination, and now it isn't absolute or certain.

But there are very good signs that she is exactly what we've been waiting for. The President's track record is extremely good on judicial appointments, and he has proven to be trustworthy...........he means what he says. He has consistently said that he wants Originalists on the courts, and that's exactly what he has done up to this point.

I, for one, am willing to wait for evidence before convicting this woman based on rumors and trumped up charges. And I do trust the President and the Vice President's judgement on what kind of a judge she will be.

And I personally think that it's a good quality that he is not following 'our script'.........even though it causes momentary frustration and not just a little bit of angst....