Nobody can seriously argue that Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer, Kennedy or even O'Connor are either.
So our President nominated someone who appears at first glance likely to vote along with Scalia and Thomas more than any of those other names.
It's not a sure thing in my mind but I think that's where he's coming from.
Seems to me that too many people against this nomination are more concerned with whether she'll inspire Lawrence Tribe to write a glowing report of her in his next Con Law treatise instead of realizing what we're up against. Nobody believes Ginsberg, Souter and Stevens are legal heavyweights more than reliable liberal votes. If Miers is a stealth conservative who will provide a reliable vote, that will matter most to conservatives and the movement.
Finally, Bush never promised another Scalia or Thomas. When asked in the second debate if he had an opportunity to nominate someone who would he choose and why, Bush first said "I'm not telling" and then explained what kind of person he would not nominate (pledge, dred scott). He said he would nominate strict constructionists. Then Kerry pointed out that Bush said (in '99) that he most admires Scalia and Thomas, to point out where Bush was "coming from".
People who trumpet the whole Scalia/Thomas *promise* have been fooled by John Kerry, of all people.
This is one of the best posts I've seen on the Miers nomination. And I'm marking for further consideration tomorrow.
Your spinning hard the "Scalia Thomas" quote. Bush made the statement in the 2000 campaign. And it was not off the cuff. He said it repeatedly. Either he was sincere and bailed out on the fight or he was merely manipulating conservative voters. Neither scenario looks good.
bttt
Well said.
Another perspective: With regard to the balance of the court, the only meaningful test is whether Miers is preferable to O'Connor. That's the choice at hand.
And yes, it is still only a gut feel at this point, but I don't think Miers will be nearly the mistake for Bush that O'Connor was for Reagan.