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?
"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."
Question: No doubt that the Democrats will try to do that, as some on the Left tried to raise Roberts' Catholicism as a potential issue. But can't we do the same thing with Miers that we did with Roberts, and point out that there is no litmus test for religion that is outlined in the Constitution when evaluating a nominee for any court? That's like saying that people who practice certain religions need not apply, and that goes directly aginst free exercise of religion. It should not be allowed.
Is it your view that a nominee who testified "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be reversed" would not be confirmed?
What do you think the vote would be on such a nominee?
I believe you are right on all those points. If she is Pro Life, that leaning will be exposed by the Dems.
The issue is about to become is a moderate conservative confirmable. She will not appear extreme. She will seem genial and will politely disagree with the Dems.
In the final analysis it is not the Dems who must have cover. It is the 7 RINOs. They decide who is confirmable. That means a moderate conservative, not a hardline conservative.
And keep in mind, this is not guesswork. Bush would have called them and asked who was unacceptable. The preferred names of FR would have led the list.
But if what the anti-Miers crowd says here is true, nothing could be better than having the democrats slash this nominee. She's "established" her "moderate" credentials be being relentlessly attacked by all on the right, so if the dems destroy her Bush would have "no choice" but to send up a more solidly conservative heavyweight -- and he could argue that he tried to mollify the democrats and they stabbed HIM in the back.
i'm not arguing (as some have on FR) that this might be Bush's actual strategy, or that it would be good. I'm just saying that, in the realm of things I would be worried about if I was opposed to this nomination, I would NOT be worried that she was so weak the democrats would destroy her -- that would instead be my fervent hope.