The hearings can't illuminate the details that are necessary to understand the judicial temperament of Ms. Miers. The hearings will be a show - very little of substance.
That doesn't mean there is something wrong with letting the process play out. My issue is with "politics by stealth" when it comes to seats on SCOTUS.
I can't believe we would have to explain this again for the ? time. The Senate hearings are milktoast in so far as they devulge judicial philosophy from nominees. The nominee will not answer any of those questions.
There's your answer. You won't know any more about her then than I do now.
"That is why we have judicial hearings. What is it about letting the process take its normal course that bothers you? Seriously? I can not for the life of me figure out the Anti-Miers crowd insatiable blood lust to cleave this woman in half before she has had a chance to speak for herself. Someone. Anyone please explain this to me."
Do you really believe that the White House is interested in having an open debate about Ms. Miers' record during the hearings? At that point, the mantra will be "she's made it this far... don't reject her now."
So I say... now is as good a time as any to begin debating Ms. Miers' qualifications and conservative credentials.
If Ms. Miers is wrongly rejected (i.e. she truly is a conservative but doesn't make it through the process), the White House will nominate a conservative with a long track record, and Ms. Miers will lose her chance but our country will still benefit from the end of liberal judicial tyranny.
If Ms. Miers is wrongly confirmed (i.e. she proves to be a liberal such as Souter and Kennedy both nominated by Republican presidents), Ms. Miers will get "her chance" and our country will be paying for another 20 years.
Sometimes I feel po'd at the President in general. The way he handled the government give-away after Katrina, the illegal immigration flow he refuses to stem, the really dank stench of cronyism that surrounds all of his latest nominations (be it Miers, or Mike Brown or whatnot).
Still, I REFUSE to say a bad word against Ms. Miers (all I can say is that I have a queasy feeling about her, but we'll see how this unfolds). But I can EASILY see how a lot of people will want to scream bloody murder after all of the crap we've had to endure from a "conservative" such as our President.
Still, you know what? I give thanks every day that Sen. Kerry or Mr. Gore were not elected. Could you IMAGINE how they would have replaced a reliable conservative like Justice Reinquest? Boggles the mind!
Always be thankful for what you have IMO. And I pray that Ms. Miers if confirmed is a good Justice.
I agree. There are two phrases I am absolutely sick of hearing: price gouging and Harriet Miers. Why can't all these bloviators wait for the hearings. Conservatives are coming across as spoiled babies who didn't get their way. That crap belongs on the playground. Wait until she has said a few things and then critisize if you want. Now is way too soon.
Because she could be voted in by a combination of RINOs and Dems. Conservatives may control Congress, but we're not the majority there.
Others are believing what they read.
Can you explain how Ms Miers can create a track record in a hearing? Do you not understand the problem we have with this nomination? The speculation I have see is that she is "swell". Well what does that tell us exactly? She can say anything she wants in a heating but you know people by their actions and her actions for the last 30 years seem to be more practicing the art of being noncommittal than conservative in any significant way. The hearings will not solve the problem of never in her career really establishing herself as a bona fide Constructionist.
Might it be that once the "process" starts, that is the hearings, it's too late? Would a single republican voting against her give the rats license to vote against each and every judge en masse? Perhaps not but it might disband the gang of 14 (not that I'm suggesting that wouldn't be a good thing).
I suspect that some feel, having observed the process for many years, that the only time to rectify what they consider to be an appointment mistake, at least at the SCOTUS level, is before hearings start.
Just speculation based on many years of sausage making. I make no representation as to knowing what someone else thinks, merely presented for your amusement and consideration.