[wigswest]

While I am deeply troubled by the Miers nomination, and would wish for a candidate who's been proven to fight for judicial conservatism "in the trenches", this statement from the article give me pause:

When Douglas Ginsburg asked to have his nomination to the Supreme Court pulled in 1987 after allegations he had used marijuana, Ronald Reagan won unanimous confirmation in a Democratic Senate for Anthony Kennedy, then a judge with a decade-long conservative track record on a federal appellate court.

Please, someone convince me we aren't facing the possibility of losing as big as we did with Kennedy in this crapshoot, should we get our wish for a proven judicial conservative.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Bork and Ginsburg were known quantities.

Kennedy was a third-stringer, who supposedly assured Senator Helms that he was anti-Roe.

Miers is a disaster in the making.

The only way that a possible replacement could be worse is if it was Alberto Gonzales.

[okie01]

In fact, it became clear Ms. Miers is a complete mystery. "We spent about 1,200 hours together and had in excess of 6,000 agenda items, and I never knew where Harriet was going to be on any of those items until she cast her vote," Jim Buerger, a former Miers colleague on the Dallas City Council, told the Washington Post. "I wouldn't consider her a liberal, a moderate or a conservative, and I can't honestly think of any cause she championed."

This is, I believe, the most disturbing report I've seen yet. Ms. Miers seems not to have a guiding philosophy but, instead, "wings it" with each decision.

Sounds like the next Sandra Day O'Connor...

[rogue yam]

Please, someone convince me we aren't facing the possibility of losing as big as we did with Kennedy in this crapshoot, should we get our wish for a proven judicial conservative.

So, imagine that you are someone else besides yourself, and you are reading this post of yours and trying to figure out what you are intending to say. What is it?