Ah, yes, the old koolaid/ad hominem cliche. I am doing my own research and making up my own mind about the Miers nomination. So far I've learned that she is qualified from both historical and Constitutional perspectives. Her qualifications are comparable to or better than many former SC justices. She appears, from what little I know of her background, to be a social conservative.
I'm willing to keep an open mind until the hearings. If I don't like how they're going, I'll contact my senators and say so. In the meantime, I'm more than willing to trust the President I voted for twice. If that makes me a fool, so be it. That's my choice to make. Not yours or anyone else's to make for me.
This isn't a matter of "trust."
This isn't an FDA commissioner, or a Surgeon General, or even the head of the DOJ.
This is the single greatest, most solemn responsibility entrusted to the chief executive, short of executing his role as Commander in Chief.
We're being asked to take a leap of faith...with an associate justice of the Supreme Court!
This is an institution that-after many years of aggrandizing its Constitutionally-enumerated prerogatives-has become the single most important, decisive branch of the federal government.
This is an individual who, if confirmed, will serve-barring any unforeseen debilities or catastrophic personal issues-for the next two decades.
The rest of her natural life!!
You're asking us to invest our hope in an unknown quantity, who will be stepping into one of the most vital functions of our federal government, and who will be assuming heretofore unimaginable professional responsibilities.
This is a risk that shouldn't have ever been asked of us.