[dirtboy]

Dirtboy, why don't you tell us why you believe she would be an excellent addition to the Supreme Court and was indeed "the Best Person" (not woman, best person) the President could find?

I will defer to Sowell's column, who said it better than I could:

Thomas Sowell: Republican Senate Is Weak, Not Bush

President Bush has taken on too many tough fights -- Social Security being a classic example -- to be regarded as a man who is personally weak. What is weak is the Republican majority in the Senate.

When it comes to taking on a tough fight with the Senate Democrats over judicial nominations, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist doesn't really have a majority to lead. Before the President nominated anybody, before he even took the oath of office for his second term, Senator Arlen Specter was already warning him not to nominate anyone who would rile up the Senate. Later, Senator John Warner issued a similar warning. It sounded like a familiar Republican strategy of pre-emptive surrender.

Before we can judge how the President played his hand, we have to consider what kind of hand he had to play. It was a weak hand -- and the weakness was in the Republican Senators.

Does this mean that Harriet Miers will not be a good Supreme Court justice if she is confirmed? It is hard to imagine her being worse than Sandra Day O'Connor -- or even as bad.

The very fact that Harriet Miers is a member of an evangelical church suggests that she is not dying to be accepted by the beautiful people, and is unlikely to sell out the Constitution of the United States in order to be the toast of Georgetown cocktail parties or praised in the New York Times. Considering some of the turkeys that Republicans have put on the Supreme Court in the past, she could be a big improvement.

--snip--

The bottom line with any Supreme Court justice is how they vote on the issues before the High Court. It would be nice to have someone with ringing rhetoric and dazzling intellectual firepower. But the bottom line is how they vote. If the President is right about Harriet Miers, she may be the best choice he could make under the circumstances.

---------------

Does Sowell like this reality? Apparently not. Do I like it? No. I would love to see Bush, in a post-nuclear-option Senate, ram JRB down the Dem's throat. But he cannot. That is the reality here. Sowell is smart enough to realize that.

So Bush's critics over this nomination can engage in the luxury of putting forth their dream candidates as an alternative. But the Senate Republicans took that luxury away from Bush.

[aBootes]

But the Senate Republicans took that luxury away from Bush.

On the contrary. Mr. Bush could nominate anyone he wished to. It is not clear that, after Mr. Robert's hearing, a better qualified nominee would have been rejected. In any case, it is best to actually be defeated before acting defeated.

[aumrl]

dirtboy #59. you go boy! tells it like it is.

[msnimje]

It is very telling that you cut out these lines from Mr. Sowell's Column :

"We don't know. But President Bush says he has known Harriet Miers long enough that he feels sure. For the rest of us, she is a stealth nominee. Not since The Invisible Man has there been so much stealth. That's not ideal by a long shot. "

But his article is not about what a great nominee Miss Miers is, it is a rationalization for WHY the President made the choice he did.
It is important to note that Mr. Sowell does not know for a fact this is the President's reasoning and it is an OPIONION piece.

I am not at all interested in whether the President made a wise choice, I want to know if SHE IS A WISE CHOICE.