Well, sure, anyone who backed Roberts would have to be more sure of him than Miers...because there really was more known about him...plus, he had been confirmed by the Senate before....(if that matters to anyone here).
But, I guess what I am asking is: How sure can any of us be about anyone? I keep hearing people say "if only" about Luttig, Owens, and others...if only they were picked "we would be SURE"...and I say, not necessarily.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if Miers is confirmed, and the first case that comes up, Roberts goes left, and Miers goes right?
There is always some amount of uncertainty.
Introducing large amounts of uncertainty is destabilizing. Not saying a Miers seating would be destabilizing, just making a general comment, and certainly the selection process is a bit unstable, and I think that can be traced directly back to the degree of uncertainty.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if Miers is confirmed, and the first case that comes up, Roberts goes left, and Miers goes right?
Depending on the underlying issue in the case, judicial restraint does swing both right and left. There is enough complexity that labeling is a waste of time. But I hear you, what if each swung "opposite" from what the conventional wisdom said they would do. Liek som mnay other things, we'd discuss it, shrug, and go have a beer. ;-)