If the conservatives show their loyalty to Bush by rejecting his Supreme Court Nominee that he is convinced is a true conservative, then why should Bush later appoint a true conservative to replace her? If I were Bush, I'd call each Senator into my office over the next week or two and explain the facts of life to them.
I'm really beginning to wonder if the undercurrent of opposition isn't based on her fundamentalist Christian conservatism. Christian conservatives are one of the few groups remaining against whom discrimination is socially acceptable.
The argument about her credentials is disingenuous....real quick -- name another another NON-JUDGE (cause Bush said he wanted that diversity) female lawyer who headed a 400 lawyer firm, was president of a state bar, made review, was listed in the top 100, led a state agency, and worked as personal staff for the president.
Hillary Clinton doesn't even have those credentials.
We need an article comparing Hillary's legal credentials with those of Miers. After all, isn't a presidential candidate and a Scotus candidate at somewhat similar levels?
Hillary: went to law school at Yale, got married to Bill, joined Rose Law Firm, AFTER Bill became Governor she was made a partner, she was never head of the firm, she did not head the Arkansaw Bar, then she followed Bill to D.C., she misled a health care commission, and then she became a Senator.
I'd say that for personal achievement in the legal profession, game/set/match goes to Miers.
Arkansas....correction
If the conservatives show their loyalty to Bush by rejecting his Supreme Court Nominee that he is convinced is a true conservative, then why should Bush later appoint a true conservative to replace her?
If Bush were to stoop to doing something like that just for spite, then he never was a true conservative in the first place. Frankly, I've never believed he is a true conservative. He's too much on the compassion, and much less on the conservative.