And neither does anyone else...including the President....which is the point.
As Mark Levin said on his show last night....he was involved in the vetting of Anthony Kennedy and Kennedy lied through his teeth about his judicial philosophy. Anyone can say anything. Why leave anything to chance? Why, when there were potential nominees with a strong record...should we now just hope and trust...why didn't he pick someone who had a record of originalism? Why? I just don't get it
All your Levin anecdote illustrates is no vetting is perfect. President Bush has worked with Miers for years and she has spearheaded that very process for his other nominees. This reminds me of the Cheney pick. The odds are much more in Bush's favor that Miers is as he represents.
BTW, I didn't realize Levin is living with the shame of not vetting Kennedy properly and blaming it on "lies". Not very impressive for Mark.
You're contradicting yourself. You say that Kennedy lied through his teeth and had a strong record, so the President should nominate someone with a strong record. That makes no sense.
The President chose someone he knows personally, whose record he knows (irregardless of what you know). Anyone can say anything if they're not personally known, but it's hard to pull of the lie if you work with someone every day. He did pick someone with a record of originalism, you're just not directly privy to it. She is the anti-Souter and anti-Kennedy.