[Cicero]

I guess it depends what you mean by qualified. Normally, a president should nominate the best candidates available. Whether they want a knee-jerk Roe v. Wade supporter or a strict constructionist, they should still nominate the best in these categories. I don't think that's the case here. There are probably thousands of corporate lawyers who are equally well qualified--which is to say, not qualified--for such a cricial job.

In any case, the doubts about her conservatism, and the many small bits of evidence to the contrary, are more important. Better a second-rate conservative than a first-rate liberal; but best of all, a truly stellar conservative.

[Milhous]

Better a second-rate conservative than a first-rate liberal; but best of all, a truly stellar conservative.

<sarcasm>
Can't we all just get along? How about Bush withdraw Miers and nominate a penny so that we can flip a coin to achieve a truly fair swing vote?
</sarcasm>

My apologies for my sarcasm but bending over and grabbing my ankles yet again for socialist justice forces me to seek sanctury in sarcasm - the last refuge of an empty mind. LOL.

[etradervic]

Better a second-rate conservative than a first-rate liberal;

We do not know if she is a second-rate conservative. W thinks that she is a first-class conservative. According to W, she may even be among the best qualified. The problem is that the rest of us do not know.

What I find troubling is that if she were truly a Conservative, how could she spend her 60 year life straddling an ideological fence showing no conviction either way?