Yes, if you decided to do the Niagra Falls thing- I would conclude it was a stupid thing to have done. That is because there was PRIOR EVIDENCE of the risk.
With Miers, don't have that- for good or ill. My question was rhetorical- hoping in vain to jar some thinking here. IOW's what if we get the RESULT we want? What if she turns out to be Scalia or Thomas-like?
Bottom line I often ask myself- do I want to be RIGHT or happy?
Prior Evidence: David Souter. Anthony Kennedy. Warren Burger.
I would love nothing more than to get another Scalia, and have all of this gnashing of teeth turn out to be all for naught. But the issue to many is that there were others out there who clearly were Scalia-ish, so why take the risk if it's unnecessary?
Perhaps there is a reason for the choice that none of us are privy to. Perhaps they know that there will be other opportunities down the road (Ginsberg? Stevens? Both?) and are confident enough in this pick to soften the blow for later on. I don't know. But given what we do know, which is very little, there is certainly on the surface more risk here than there needs to be.