Note that what they SAID is not like the inflamatory headline.
They didn't warn the senators to support his nominee "or else".
They made the observation that, when she wins the nomination (which that still say she will), she will sit on the bench.
And in a couple of years, when it turns out she is a scalia or thomas, at least in result, the conservatives who weren't against the nominee from the beginning would look at senators who voted against her because she wasn't conservative enough will have lost some credibility.
I would say this differently, because I disagree with them. If she makes it, and the next nominee isn't trashed because of what the conservatives do to her, and everybody turns out to be great nominees, NOBODY will remember this crap 10 years from now, except when new nominees come up.
Why would I lash out at someone who to a principle stand to stop someone they thought would be bad, even if they turn out good? It's like being mad the coach didn't call a bunt when the guy hits a home run.
Now, the pundits who all promise she's a terrible nominee might have to look for new jobs -- they will have lost their credibility (if they had any).
However, if Miers is rejected, and a "more conservative" nominee is sent up, and that nominee turns out to be a souter after getting the appointment -- then there will be a backlash against everybody who fought this nominee.
What the White house is saying is that opposing this nominee isn't a FREEBEE for the conservatives. Because, as I and many others have said, you don't KNOW she won't be a great justice. You are just scared because you don't know she will be. I understand, I'm a little scared too.
But I trust the president to a point, and if he turns out to have been right, and his detractors turn out to have been wrong, there could be consequences to that result.
For example, if Miers has been on the court for a while, and all her votes are solid, Brownback will NOT get the nomination for president if he votes against her. Why?
Because he will be judged on his "judgment" of judicial nominees, and will be found wanting.
On the other hand, if he saved us from Harriet, we will never know what he saved us from, so unless the replacement is a second coming of Scalia, he will also not get the nomination.
That is what "warning" means.
For the "requires judicial restraint" side
Senator (minority) votes AGAINST - Miers is like Scalia - Senator LOSES
Senator (majority) votes FOR - Miers is like Scalia - Senator is a genius/hero
Senator (minority) votes AGAINST - Miers is like Ginsberg - Senator got a lucky break
Senator (majority) votes FOR - Miers is like Ginsberg - Senator has been had! "Trust me!"
Excuse the shorthand. There are all sorts of middle ground as they relate to Miers performance. THere is lots of room between Scalia nd Ginsberg, and many issues. But the general idea will play, using the individual calculus that each of us brings to the table.
There is no way to take a principled stand when the princple being measured is not adequately probed. This is a crap shoot for all of us, Senators included.
A choice on principle would mean that this nomination would be a knock-down drag-out battle with the opposition.
I don't like crap shoots for SCOTUS nominations. The stakes are too high, and it isn't a fair exercise for the public.
Each nominee stands and falls on his or her own merits. It is false logic to make any attachment from one nominee to the next. That's just a tool to convince you take what's in hand, even if you don't like it, because what's under the next cup might be worse.
One has to assume that the President is sending nominees of a certain quality. Is the next one really going to be worse? Well, then it'lll be worse whether or not this one is rejected.
"And in a couple of years, when it turns out she is a scalia or thomas, at least in result, the conservatives who weren't against the nominee from the beginning would look at senators who voted against her because she wasn't conservative enough will have lost some credibility."
That is why most Senators are either supportive (giving the President a chance), and/or 'wait and see'.
The only thing that would be REALLY galling would be a Senator who voted FOR Ginsburg to come out against Miers and try to explain the higher scrutiny needed for a Bush pick over a Clinton pick.
We NEVER should have let Ginsburg get on there so easily.