I agree with you.
But just for argument's sake, let's assume Bush DID "promise" to nominate judges "in the mold of Thomas or Scalia."
And that leads me to my question: How are Harriet Miers's qualifications and known beliefs NOT like Thomas's, before his confirmation?
It will be shown that George W. Bush did say he would appoint judges “in the mold” of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
"How are Harriet Miers's qualifications and known beliefs NOT like Thomas's, before his confirmation?"
Justice Clarence Thomas had already been an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States since 1991. In 2000, Justice Clarence Thomas had a clear record as a conservative and a constitutional originalist. In 2000, everyone knew what George W. Bush meant when he said he would appoint originalist judges and used Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as examples.
George W. Bush did not say that he would appoint judges like Clarence Thomas as Clarence Thomas was known back in 1991 when his record was less clear and many Conservatives still had doubts about him.
In 2000, George W. Bush DID NOT PROMISE he would nominate a STEALTH candidate who we would have to TRUST to be like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Bush backed down from a much needed PUBLIC debate on Conservative values. By doing so, he has created a real incentive for judges who aspire to be nominated to higher courts to avoid creating clear conservative records for themselves.
And that is not a good thing.
Sigh. You don't even want to go there. We've got folks creating conspiracy theories to avoid admitting obvious facts on the record. Until Miers rips off a mask and reveals she actually is Clarance Thomas, you will never get some people on this site to believe she is anything other than an elderly Monica Lewinsky.