"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.
How do you know that? Please tell me!
What will she say that? When will she say it? What cases will this pertain to?? Don't go south on me ya hear? Tell me!
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.
Unless that Senator explained that the unconstitutional filibuster interposed since Clinton nominated Ruth Buzzie has resulted in Bush nominating someone with a record which is incapable of being reasonably discerned. Tough sell, I acknowledge, but it would fly if a large enough contingent of demonrats voted against her to make it possible for her to be voted down with only a few republican votes. That's about the only scenario I see at this point for discrediting the filibuster (the demonrats would have voted against a nominee from their list). Once the filibuster is discredited, Bush can nominate Robert Bork if he wants to.
Conservatives should be trying to convince democrats that she's a bad choice, not trying to convince conservatives that she is.