[Blowtorch]

Thanks for the well thought-out post. A couple points in response.

Who would you rather have ruling on the next partial birth abortion case, O'Conner or Miers?

Yes but we could have had O'Conner vs. almost any conservative candidate and have answered the question the same way. Using O'Conner as a measuring stick, Miers looks better from what we know. But what about the Thomas/Scalia measuring stick? I think that's what was hoped for, and how she measures up to them will not be apparent for quite some time I'm afraid. Are you saying that Bush made the decision to go with a mediocre candidate rather than taking the risk of not being backed up by the Senate? If that's the case, I think it's a bad choice by Bush - I'm not as convinced as you are that it wouldn't be doable.

[Howlin]

Yes but we could have had O'Conner vs. almost any conservative candidate and have answered the question the same way.

How can you answer that question if the other candidate wouldn't have been confirmed? If he can't get them on the Court, why could they possibly be "better" than O'Conner?

Are you saying that Bush made the decision to go with a mediocre candidate rather than taking the risk of not being backed up by the Senate?

No, I'm saying that he nominated a candidate who is absolutely positive will NOT "drift" once she gets on the Court -- one that will definitely take the Court rightward.

If that's the case, I think it's a bad choice by Bush - I'm not as convinced as you are that it wouldn't be doable.

I'm positive he couldn't have gotten anybody else confirmed with the way the Gang has screwed him; I believe he's going to get another shot at the Court and after Miers is on the Court, you're going to see the next nominee blow the Democrats' collective peabrains; but I don't think it will be anybody who has already been named/listed.