Hee! Funny that the folks who are saying they're taking a "wait and see" approach seem to be all ready to declare victory if she comes off well in the hearings. Well, so did Souter. Evaluating justices is a long-term proposition...before we see how Miers votes over several years (and especially, after W. gets out of office), we just won't really know.
Until then I'm neither eating nor serving crow in this debate. :)
There has been some discussion about comparing the current "Ginsberg Rule" hearings with hearings and their contents for previous nominees. I haven't studied any of the following, but it is a resource useful as a matter of comparison.
Nomination Hearings for: David H. Souter, Anthony M. Kennedy, William Hubbs Rehnquist (to CJ), Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, William H. Rehnquist (Assoc.), & Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/scourt.html
I had another epiphany today, this one regarding the supposed hypocricy if GOP Senators don't vote to confirm Ms. Miers, when history shows us they voted for Ginsberg. First, the "vote for a cipher" issue has baggage all it's own, and represents "guessing," not deliberation, on the part of a Senator. That is bad, per se, as I described in my first ever vanity, "Uncertainty," the Nominee.
But what about the situation where a nominee's past inclination regarding judicial restrait, conformity with the Founder's vision of jurisprudence, strict constructionism, or traditionalism - whatever you may choose for a shorthand label - is clear? What if another Ginsberg appeard? And it hit me like a ton of bricks.
The GOP Senators have been derilict in their duty. They are not fighting for judicial restraint or a traditionalist court. If they were, they would ask questions that probe that, and failing to get clear answers, or knowing that the nominee is an advoccate of "living Constitution" jurisprudence, the ONLY principled action to to deny advise & consent.
The fact that the GOP Senators have shrugged off their duty in the past does not justify continuing that practice. If the GOP really advocates strict constructionists, then it provides advise & consent for those, and only those. They'll win some and they'll lose some, but they shoudl be voting with THAT principle in mind, instead of deference to the President.
Deference may be okay as a "tie breaker" if a Senator is fence sitting - but a GOP Senator, who holds the line for strict construction by a sitting Justice, would not cast an AYE vote for Ginsberg, etc.