Replies

"Some moderate (i.e., lukewarm) conservatives admonish the rest of us to hold our fire until Ms. Miers's performance at her hearing tells us more about her outlook on law, but any significant revelations are highly unlikely. She cannot be expected to endorse originalism; that would alienate the bloc of senators who think constitutional philosophy is about arriving at pleasing political results. What, then, can she say? Probably that she cannot discuss any issue likely to come before the court. Given the adventurousness of this court, that's just about every issue imaginable. What we can expect in all probability is platitudes about not "legislating from the bench." The Senate is asked, then, to confirm a nominee with no visible judicial philosophy who lacks the basic skills of persuasive argument and clear writing."

But wouldn't it serve the conservative cause if she goes into the hearing and actually defends an originalist doctrine? She is a competent lawyer. What if she is the one to deliver the empassioned plea for the correct judicial philosophy?

And if that causes her to lose her consent, wouldn't that just be icing on the cake for her critics?

Exactly right. Unless Harriet totally embarrasses herself on points of Con Law (a distinct possibility), she will reveal little about how she might vote. In fact, I doubt she will know until the time comes to vote. She has no philosophical underpinnings to guide her.