[Cboldt]

Yes. We get it already. The President nominates. He did that. Nobody stopped him from doing that. Ms. Miers -IS- the nominee. No amount of talking to the President will change her status as nominee. He could nominate Hillary, and she would be the nominee. That just describes a step in the process. Nobody denied the President the right to nominate who he wanted (unless you argue, as I do, that he felt hemmed in by the 60 vote hurdle erected by a minority of Senators from the obstructionist party).

So now the process goes on, and a number of people are urging their Senators to REJECT the nominee, if inadequate information is provided to make a more reliable subjective judgement of where on the specturm of tradtionalist - modernist her juducial inclinations fall.. Absent that data, the only prudent decsion is REJECTION.

And so, the Senators, hearing from their constituents, may (or may not) seek the information that will inform them, and will inform the voters who aim to hold the Senators to account for what is their decision.

President Bush has made his pick, and he doesn't want to hear objections. To President Bush I say, "plug your ears, the Senate is on it."

[Ditto]

So now the process goes on, and a number of people are urging their Senators to REJECT the nominee, if inadequate information is provided to make a more reliable subjective judgement of where on the specturm of tradtionalist - modernist her juducial inclinations fall.. Absent that data, the only prudent decsion is REJECTION.

Step two in the process is the hearings where the Senate gets to ask questions to inform themselves and you, on the desirability of this nominee. But Bork and others obviously, see no need for that constitutionally prescribed step since they have already made up your minds.

I suppose that is what the Rats have been doing since "Bork" so why not us too? Lets all send basic fairness and constitutional tradition down the dran together.