[GOPJ]

The biggest concern of many on the right is that Miers may not be a "real" conservative. Many Republicans, stung by the examples of Souter, Stevens...

How does Souter feel knowing dems don't accept him and we can't stand him?

[TheDon]

If a paper trail firmly identifying a nominee as an "originalist," or whatever, is a prerequisite for nomination, then we will never have anyone but judges and law professors as Supreme Court justices.

Is this a backhanded attempt to call some anti-Miers elitist? We know that's just not true.

[Mike Darancette]

If, on balance, the Senator can state reasons for not voting for Miers after she has been fairly heard then I would not hold it against them. What cheeses me off is the vitriolic seeming lockstep mentality of sheep blindly following the media sound bite lynching.

Asking for with drawl is a cop out, no matter what her hearing will bring out some issues that a more mainstream candidate might not.

[Earthdweller]

An interesting summation of the weeks events.

[JohnnyZ]

Until now, the judicial confirmation process has never been seen as one where senators can reject a qualified nominee on the ground that he or she isn't the nominee the senators wanted, or the one the senators consider the best.

Straw man.

The "not the best" arguments are critical of the decision to nominate, and not given as a reason to vote against.

The arguments to vote against are based on "not qualified", not "qualified but not the best".

The author has made up a position to argue against.

[Reactionary]

"If a paper trail firmly identifying a nominee as an "originalist," or whatever, is a prerequisite for nomination, then we will never have anyone but judges and law professors as Supreme Court justices."

Well, at least someone "gets" it.

[thoughtomator]

But, once a handful of Republican senators have used such a rationale to vote against a Republican nominee, it requires little imagination to foresee how quickly the Democrats will use that precedent to justify their own opposition to essentially any Republican nominee, no matter how well-qualified or mainstream.

Calling Robert Bork to the white courtesy phone...

It's dangerously naive to think that the Democrats will be stopped from taking any action that they believe is in their benefit due to lack of reasonable justification.

[JohnnyZ]

From this perspective, Miers is deemed unacceptable because she has not spent years wrestling with, and writing about, Constitutional issues

She hasn't spent 5 minutes, let alone years.

This is the woman who denied ever discussing landmark SC cases with anyone.

[JohnnyZ]

But many conservative critics of Harriet Miers come perilously close to urging that standard

In other words, no one has advocated that.

John Hinderaker -- moron.

[msnimje]

Voting AGAINST Miers should be the easiest decision of any Senator's life.

There simply is not enough known about her to grant her a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. What is known about her is not impressive and some is even discouraging.

If the founders wanted the president to have free reign appointing justices to SCOTUS, they would not have designed the ADVISE AND CONSENT role of the Senate.

[Pietro]

just another example of how W screwed the pooch w/ this nomination.

[Ol' Sparky]

The Democrats abandoned playing by those rules LONG ago. That is one of the reasons the Supreme Court is dominated by left-wing judicial activists. The Democrats block qualified conservatives like Robert Bork while the Republicans allowed qualified ACLU lawyers like Ruth Bader Ginsberg to be confirmed almost unanimiously.

You and Hinderaker apparently value the principle of in the way the process should be conducted over doing whatever is necessary to change the direction on the court. You want Republicans to take what you consider to be the high road while the Democrats are playing dirty and only looking at the ideology of nominee. That’s is WHY conservatives are losing.

Republicans in the Senate need to play the game the way the Democrats are and only vote to confirm judges that are proven originalists. Presidents aren't kings. The process allows for the Senate to reject any nominee for any reason. Frankly, rejecting a nominee because he or she isn’t an originalist is a very good reason.

[ez]

But many conservative critics of Harriet Miers come perilously close to urging that standard on Republican senators, in hopes that, if Miers is defeated, the president will go back to the candidate pool more favored by conservatives. But, once a handful of Republican senators have used such a rationale to vote against a Republican nominee, it requires little imagination to foresee how quickly the Democrats will use that precedent to justify their own opposition to essentially any Republican nominee, no matter how well-qualified or mainstream.

[reelfoot]

"Republicans have long taken the position that, because it is the president's prerogative to select Supreme Court justices, any nominee who is qualified . . . ."

1) Keeping a bowl of M & Ms in her office does not make up for not knowing important constitutional cases. She's not qualified.

2) While the Republicans may have taken such a position, the Dims don't play by the same rule book. They slash and burn. The court will not be returned to faithful constitutionalists unless conservative senators insist on such, regardless of whether the nominee was picked by a Republican or Dim president.

[TUX]

Methinks this nomination was,is,and will be,the straw women. You know create a straw-person, let the opposition tear it to shreds, then present the dark horse. We will see if the nomination is withdrawn, and the real nominee steps forward and is substituted.
W. did one switch why not two?