[bluefish]

A better question is, "why not let the Senate Judiciary Committee ask her about these issues."

I have no problem letting the committee ask about the issues - the very issues being raised by journalists, commentators, message boards, etc. Without them being raised here, they aren't "issues" now, are they?

Attempting to silent critics or discussion in the name of "letting the Senate do its job" is the same thing as attempting to turn us all into sheep.

So the real question is.. What is wrong with the people conducting their own investigation to insure the Senate does its job properly? After all, it may be Senate's job to provide advice and consent, but it is OUR job to ultimately consent with respect to the Senate.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with discussion before the hearings, as you seem to imply.

[shrinkermd]

Unfortunately you are wrong. The anti-Miers types are all asking that the Hearings not proceed. There can be only two reasons for this--she will be confirmed and once a vote is held the Senators eventually are accountable to the electorate.

The Constitution gives he President the right to nominate and the Senate the right to advise and consent. Giving Miers a Hearing seems Constitutional to me in spite of all the discussion she will not uphold "original intent."

Bet that she has a Hearing. Odds are better than even she will be confirmed.