[ez]

Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, Leonard Leo, the head of the Federalist Society, Jay Sekulow, Nathan Hecht and others have offered well reasoned opinions of her nomination. Remember the saying, "there are none so blind as those who will not see"

Thomas Sowell also says she should be supported. Sister Bertrille has been spouting off that he/she/it has seen no proof all day because h/s/i doesn't WANT to see it.

[Cboldt]

Thomas Sowell also says she should be supported.

Before we can judge how the President played his hand, we have to consider what kind of hand he had to play. It was a weak hand -- and the weakness was in the Republican Senators.

Does this mean that Harriet Miers will not be a good Supreme Court justice if she is confirmed? It is hard to imagine her being worse than Sandra Day O'Connor -- or even as bad.

The very fact that Harriet Miers is a member of an evangelical church suggests that she is not dying to be accepted by the beautiful people, and is unlikely to sell out the Constitution of the United States in order to be the toast of Georgetown cocktail parties or praised in the New York Times. Considering some of the turkeys that Republicans have put on the Supreme Court in the past, she could be a big improvement.

We don't know. But President Bush says he has known Harriet Miers long enough that he feels sure.

For the rest of us, she is a stealth nominee. Not since The Invisible Man has there been so much stealth.

That's not ideal by a long shot. But ideal was probably never in the cards, given the weak sisters among the Republicans' Senate "majority." ...

The bottom line with any Supreme Court justice is how they vote on the issues before the High Court. It would be nice to have someone with ringing rhetoric and dazzling intellectual firepower. But the bottom line is how they vote. If the President is right about Harriet Miers, she may be the best choice he could make under the circumstances.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2005/10/07/159683.html

That piece chooses -one- bottom line. The performance of the nominee. It ignores the political fallout resulting from making a timid pick and avoiding confrontation with some serious government dysfunction between the Senate and the President when it comes to nominations.

The piece is also conditional, -IF- the President is right, says Sowell. I missed the part where he said she should be supported. Can you provide a quotation and cite to support your "Thomas Sowell also says she should be supported." assertion? I take the piece as basically explaining how a timid pick might be justified.