[conservatism_IS_compassion]

What this train of thought is missing is a cogent explanation of why I should wager the staffing of the high court on some family's father-son dynamics. It may, in fact, be what I have to do, but given the depth of the constuctionist bench developed over the course of the last few decades, this is apologetics, pure and simple.

The existence of the Gang of Fourteen - really, of the Republican participants in it - explains why Bush doesn't just nominate a known Scalia rather than trying for an unknown Thomas.

I mention the Bush family dynamics only to suggest that, if he can't do a Scalia, Bush is really motivated to come up with a Thomas. To us, Miers' nomination is a bolt out of the blue; I'm saying that from Bush's perspective it is no such thing.

[aBootes]

The existence of the Gang of Fourteen - really, of the Republican participants in it - explains why Bush doesn't just nominate a known Scalia

Perhaps. Let us hope that it is just a moment of weakness rather than something far less honorable. Moreover, it is almost always better to actually be defeated before acting defeated.

I doubt that an excellent nominee would have been defeated, but I recognize the possibility that others could disagree on this point. In any case, I rather expect that there are a good many constructionist who would have been willing to take the personal and professional risks involved. Their dedication compares most favorably with that displayed by Mr. Bush.

[aBootes]

I mention the Bush family dynamics only to suggest that, if he can't do a Scalia, Bush is really motivated to come up with a Thomas.

I agree with this. May I just add that I hope that what he has nominated in a "Thomas" rather than a "Kennedy" or a "Souter?" And may I likewise register my disappointment that I even have to wonder about it?

That said, I do appreciate your ideas, and the courteous manner in which you have expressed them.

[counterpunch]

Miers is certainly no Scalia, but she's a Thomas in many ways.