Yes, they will. In fact, there is going to be a backlash in any event. It is irrational, but it will exist, and IMO, based on the character of their dialog now, the backlash will be viscious.
Do you agree that the uncertainty regarding the nominee's projected future persfomance on the bench has, of its own right, created division in the party? And the uncertainty, of it's own right, creates a "spin the wheel of judiciary fortune" situation? THose "artifact" form the basis for my objection to this pick. The degree of uncertainty embodied in this nominee is divisive. Who then caused this? And the person who caused it - is to be blindly trusted? I mean, I hear you, but it just doesn't make sense.
Aand add to that the likely fact that GWB and the pro-Miers camp have grudgingly, and somewhat quietly acquiesed to the 60 vote hurdle erected by the Senate. "It's a political reality," is the justification. Political reality it is, but it is also an imbalance of powers against the President, and I am willing to go to the mat to fix it, for the benefit of the Office of the President and restoration of Constitutional balance of powers. If our founders were "political realists," we'd still be subjects of the King of England.
I see this as a pre/post nomination question. Before the nominee, if "all these" conservatives (and I note that the true opposition is mostly pundits, not people who would have been on the advisory list to the president) had strongly stirred up the base against Miers ...
This is about Miers, to some extent. Sure, her bona fides, projected future performance, the question of cronyism, the possibility of ruling with an eye towarrd pleasing GWB instead of following the law , those are all valid points of discussion. But raising those points is met with epithets and scorn instead of reasoned debate. At the same time, see above, this is not just about Miers, but is also about the ramifications of this degree of uncertainty, for its own sake, regardless of who the nominee is. Raise that objection, and the pro-Miers camp takes it as a personal attack against Miers and GWB. Pure defensive reaction.
I don't blame people for trusting others. I'm just saying we are all trusting something, and given the problems we had in the past with using prior rulings as predictors of future action ...
Two points: the trust, and the reliability in predicting performance. Given that the "nominee in the mold of Thomas or Scalia" is not met, and the facts of division created by the degree of uncertainty about the nominee (on all fronts), you ask all your detractors to "just trust." That is irrational, and to be frank, unprincipled. I do blame the pro Miers camp for relying on "trust" and for shirking the responsibility to hold up their end of the debate in a substantive way. Not a "count the pundits" or "we have more in number" argument - an argument on the substantive reasoning why THIS is an acceptable pick.
With regard to the uncertainty in performance of past pick, the deviation from perceived and actual ... I believe those deviations are also the result of "trust" and a failure to probe the judicial philosophy. Our leaders have been, perhaps accidentaly, perhaps by human frailty, been playing the stealth and/or deception game for some time.
In closing, let me assert once again, as if it isn;'t clear, I stand up for principle over politics. This is important. Do I want an internal battle with the GOP? Of course not. I don't want a battle with the LIBs, socialists and communists either, but there they are.
Yes. The rollout of this nominee was the original cause of the problem (although we all have to take responsibility for our own responses).
But I don't have a time machine. I can't go back and change how the nominee was introduced. I can fix the white house not having the conservative ducks in a row, not realising that conservatives weren't actually WITH them.
I understand why -- they KNEW Harriet was exactly what conservatives wanted. They talked with reasonable representatives of the major wings of the conservative movement: The social conservatives (Dobson), the activist legalists (Sekulow), the thinkers (Leo-Federalist Society). All three were on board with the nominee.
They missed the pundits. And the pundits leaped at them. They should have covered that base. But we can't go back now.
We have to deal with what we have now. So be mad at Bush. Call him an idiot. I'm not defending Bush, I'm saying that we shouldn't force Miers to withdraw. She is loads better than Ginsburg, and our party voted her in. There is no way we can survive if we passed Ginsburg and Breyer, but stop Miers (if she proves to be as competent as her supporters claim).
On the "level of debate", both sides are posting rational arguments about how the "other side" have gone off the deep end. There is truth to all of it. We all look stupid.