Well, feel free to elaborate. I am aware that Bush personally knows Miers much better than Reagan and Bush Sr. knew their nominees. Is that everything? If so, it's not enough.
It seems to me that my Schlafly quote just points out that good conservative presidents have, using their best judgment, selected bad SCOTUS nominees. Clearly, we should not rely on any Doctrine of Presidential Infallibility.
So, what would improve our odds at getting better nominees?
We Miers detractors have a solution: The president should pick a candidate whose personal excellence and conservative qualifications have been proven over many years by their public work. Scalia and Thomas were chosen this way, and they have mostly worked out well. Roberts was chosen this way. The method seems to give good results. Moreover, it has kept the conservative base involved, intact, and enthusiastic. By examining his record we could all see for ourselves why John Roberts so richly deserved the nomination. The more we researched him, the better he looked. His hearings just confirmed what we already knew, and the Democrats didn’t lay a hand on him. The process worked. When something works, don't fix it.
Bush tried another solution. He picked a candidate whose qualifications had been proven primarily to him personally. The base was excluded. The more we researched, the more we learned that there was nothing to be learned. While Miers might eventually make a fine justice, the uncertainties surrounding her nomination, and the way in which she was chosen, have (predictably) set the base at each other's throats. It is a political disaster. It may have consequences that will far outweigh any good that Miers could do on the court. The discredited Doctrine of Presidential Infallibility now looks even more flawed, yet it remains the pro-Miers camp's main talking point.
And yes, thanks, I do know that the choice is Bush's alone, that the Senate vote is the only vote that counts, and that Bush has no legal obligation to explain his choice to anyone.
She is trying to create the impression that there is an identity there which there is not. Neither of those presidents had any personal knowledge of their candidates. It makes a gigantic difference. Sufficient to invalidate the point she tries to establish. Those Presidents relied upon the judgments of others not their own THAT was the problem. A problem that does not exist wrt Bush and Miers.
Thomas did not have the experience that Miers has and certainly had no overwhelmingly impressive vita which resulted in much criticism of the nomination including claims that the only reason he was nominated was because he was Black. Or that he could only get approved because the RATS would be afraid to defeat him being Black. This is the similiarity between Miers and Thomas which is most applicable.
How does this mechanism of approval by the base which you believe was bound to obtain work? Who speaks for this base?
The Antis? or the other 70% of the primer conservative site on the web?
There has been no infallibility claimed asking one to trust the President in no way implies he is infallible that is just silly but you are claiming the same infallibility for a base opinion which is so vague as to be undefinable.
The main talking point of the anti-Antis is to let the process go forward into the Hearings. Most of us believe Miers will show there is no problem. But I suspect there are some who won't be happy no matter what.