[RGSpincich]

...it disregards and insults the seriousness with which conservatives have worked for three decades to bring change to America's high-handed courts.

Oh yeah, look at all those titanium backbones in the conservative controlled Senate. This notion that conservatives are owed something reeks like New Orleans on a sunny day.

[Mulch]

"Advocates of the appointment have accused critics of "sexism" and "elitism"...There are probably few tactics less likely to impress a conservative audience."

yep.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Offending your supporters has real-world consequences. With one grave misjudgment, George W. Bush has shattered the coalition that brought and returned him to power in 2000 and 2004.

The last paragraph nails it.

I never thought I would see the word "betrayal" speaking about George Bush, but that seems to be the word of choice. We worked too hard and too long to have this opening; the timing was perfect, the stage was set, and Bush killed 30 years of hopes and dreams about fairness (Constitutionalism) returning to the courts.

[GB]

This article presupposes that this administration, right now, on Oct. 11, 2005, has the political will and political capital to do what it would take to push someone like Janice Brown ... who I'd like to see get this SCOTUS seat, BTW ... through the Senate. I don't think it does.

I've said this in every thread I've participated in on this topic, and I'll repeat it: We missed the chance to invoke the constitutional option, and I would be utterly surprised to see another chance come around without massive change in the Senate. Because while there are 55 Republicans in the Senate, there are not 55 movement conservatives, especially movement social conservatives. So for those spoiling for controntation and a fight with the libs over this, IMHO at this point in time, on Oct. 11, 2005, it's not likely to be a winnable fight. It would make us feel good and we could look in the mirror and say that we've stood on principle, but at the end of the day, again this is my .02, we lose because I do not see the constitutional option to break a Dem filibuster as an achievable option right now.

I am not thrilled with Miers, but I'm not ready to throw the president over the side (which is what a Senate rejection of this nominee would accomplish) or opt out of 2006 and 2008 in protest either ... to those who want to opt out of 2006, keep repeating this nine-word mantra, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."

[untrained skeptic]

We've had enough justices appointed with long judicial histories who's job had been to rule based on the law as had been decided by higher courts. When placed on the high court, their actions there were significantly different that what was expected by those appointing them.

Appointing someone who is not competent for the job because of friendship is a very bad thing.

Appointing someone who you know well and feel would do a good job and uphold the constitution is a good idea.

There are some people I would have liked to see appointed, and Miers was not among them, but I've yet to see a good reason why she shouldn't be confirmed.

I would have rather that he appointed a tough conservative constitutionalist to the court, and aggressively fought the senate to get them confirmed.

Unfortunately our president doesn't appear to have the backbone to butt heads with the Senate and has taken the easy way out by choosing a candidate without a record on many contentious issues.

That doesn't mean that she isn't a qualified, conservative, constitutionalist. It means we end up having to trust that Bush has chosen well, which is something we are uncomfortable with for a variety of valid reasons.

However, in the end, it's the president that gets to pick the nominee, and he's chosen a person who is well versed in the law. She is as qualified as many who have served on the court in the past.

[syriacus]

'It's not a rebellion, sire: It's a revolution..... an uprising within the President's own party.

Neither a revolution, nor an uprising.

Pillaging and vandalizing by soldiers when the long-awaited battle is called off.

[Mini-14]

Bush's decision to submit his personal lawyer's name for nomination to the Supreme Court has made me question the other things he has done, like promoting the war in Iraq.

He snookered us with Harriet Miers and maybe he snookered us with fake reasons for going to war.

[A Citizen Reporter]

There is only one thing on which I agree with the odious Mr. Frum in this article.

"Offending your supporters has real-world consequences"

"Conservative commentators Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Patrick Buchanan, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Michelle Malkin and many, many others have condemned the choice."

Being as these people need to make a living based on a market of people who will listen to their programs and buy their books, I'd be a bit concerned were I them. I'm not listening to any of them anymore.

[whitedog57]

C'mon. It IS a stupid choice. Bush had no business putting his personal attorney in the SOTUS. It is exactly what we scream at Democrats about. So, if WE do it, its OK?

George, baby, grow up and stop flexing your power. Nominate a serious candidate. Think of all the qualified people who are being overlooked. George is really starting to pi$$ people off. Even me.

[wildbill]

With one grave misjudgment, George W. Bush has shattered the coalition that brought and returned him to power in 2000 and 2004"

So because of one appointment of a lady who the Conservative Beltway Writers don't know--and therefore don't like--the coalition will shatter?

I guess all their talk about changing the country behind Rep. Pres and Rep. Congress was just hot air?

[Revolting cat!]

it!

[RWR8189]

Bush is down to 37%, the lowest presidential approval rating since the Carter years.

Either Frum is stupid or downright disingenuous.

Reagan, Bush41 and Clinton all found themselves below 40% approval at some point in their terms.