Replies

No it isn't. What is politicizing the bench is saying someone isn't fit even before they utter a word in committee. What is politicizing the bench is writing to your senator demanding they reject someone before they have had a hearing.

I have done neither of those things. This is a worthless discussion. If confrontation instead of information is what we are to use to form an opinion of this person that does not bode well. I am open to understanding Miers but the case is far from clear and I simply do not accept the "trust me" logic. The fact is while he has had some successes Bush has made too many mistakes in judgment in my opinion to be trusted with something this important. He owes his base more than "trust me". I am not alone that I would have preferred a known quantity. Everyone has their favorite mine was Luttig. This person comes out of nowhere with minimal history and minimal experience in constitutional law and we are supposed to just "shut up" and hope for the best. It wasn't shut up at vote time and it wasn't shut up when Gore contested the 2000 election and it isn't going to be shut up now. All I think we expect is a nominee that we can be comfortable satisfies the campaign promises Bush made... It is obvious a bunch of us are not comfortable and we should not have to take grief about that. It a reasonable reaction to an unreasonable nomination. Someone need to prove Miers is fit, not the other way round. Frankly I have seen some encouraging elements but I have also seen some things that cause me concern. It simply is not clear enough to "trust" anybody.