>
The problem with President Bush's nomination is that she is an unknown. He promised to nominate judges like Scalia and Thomas.
>
That's not a problem. That's an enormous victory. A known nominee of known pro-life credentials would be rejected. "Known" in the current stream of political reality is defined as "extreme". Such a nominee would be rejected. Rejection does not advance the cause of Bush's conservative agenda.
You don't know that he has not nominated a Scalia-like or Thomas-like candidate.
Bush has done an absolutely brilliant thing. He has nominated the rightward most candidate who is confirmable.
Remains to be seen.
Although John Roberts made them look inept, the Democrat senators who will question Miers are serious knife artists, and if they want to they will carve her up and let the media crows feast on the entrails.
VP Cheney says "Trust me" here. While I personally have a Randian allergy toward blank checks of that sort, the Democrats may just take the VP's word for it and accept that she is a conservative. If so, they'll conclude she is an atavistic woman-oppressing fundy fascist, infiltrating the court solely to torpedo their precious right to choose to kill babies.
And out come the long knives. They'll destroy her and congratulate themselves on humiliating the President as well.
I have grave doubts that an evangelical Christian as she is depicted, lawyer or no, will be able to stand before the Senate and successfully avoid betraying her convictions about abortion.
And that's not even getting into the matter of her abilities, but when was the last time this woman was in the hot seat before anyone, never mind the ravening hyenas on the Judiciary Committee?