They suggest that "she should be voted down" before a hearing?
My suggestion is that she should get a hearing first .
Supposedly principled people who insisted on "up or down votes" for nominees, merely 6 months ago, have reversed course.
Perhaps these renegers are too near-sighted. They only defend nominees who are in danger of filibuster....when they can pick a good "consitutional" fight. Harriet doesn't fit their scenario.
I think that is the main problem. Folks were primed for a good fight against the libs. When that evaporated they turned their energy against Bush.
What do leaderless soldiers do, historically, when they are all dressed up for battle and the battle doesn't take place? They pillage.
You nailed it. That's most of what's going on here. As far as what folks like Coulter are saying, IMHO she's representing the mindset of a lot of Ivy League legal eagles who've worked hard and invested a lot of time and effort in trying to position themselves to get on the SCOTUS, and probably see it as their birthright ... folks can flame away, but there is a touch of elitism involved ... and then the president has the audacity to pick someone who went to ... GASP! ... Southern Methodist.
JRB has already passed Senate confirmation to the Federal District Court. Why do so many supporters of this Miers nomination neglect to mention that fact. It would have been interesting to see the hoops the democrats would have had to jump through to deny her appointment to the SC at this point. It was all set to go and Bush blew it. And naming Roberts CJ was a slap in the face to Scalia and Thomas...both or either of whom should have been moved into the first chair.