However, I will tell you this: the democrats are not fools. When seeing the conservatives having a hissy fit about this nomination, they are not above feigning support so that the flames go higher, in the hopes of seeing a court nominee scuttled by the right. They get a conservatives trashed and they don't even have to put their fingerprints on it.
I have held my position since Miers was nominated. I want to see her at the hearings, and then, if she is incompetent and/or shows liberal tendencies, I will withdraw my support. I like to have all the evidence before I make my decision.
I don't think Miers is the single most qualified human being on the face of the planet earth to be on the SCOTUS, I would've preferred that he roll the dice with Janice Brown, but if it's useless, do you fight just for the sake of fighting? People were saying here yesterday "make the Dems say how they can reject someone for SCOTUS that they've already confirmed for a district seat." Hello? People out there actually think they wouldn't do that in a heartbeat and without an ounce of shame? And pull it off quite nicely?
Again, the circumstances are different now than they were at the time when the constitutional option was a valid and achievable option.
My .02, for what it's worth, about that much, is that people here are enraged about this not so much because of cronyism, or where she went to school, or whether she's a brilliant legal mind, but because they're not sure that she's going to be a vote to overturn Roe because of some of the folks she's run with in the past. Frum, Coulter and all of them are acting out of elitism, especially Coulter, whose last column about this was ridiculous IMHO. But I think the folks here, who are the president's base, put all their eggs in this president's basket that he would appoint justices who would overturn Roe ... people talk about "originalists," etc., but let's get real; IMHO this is about Roe ... and he seems to be wussing and everyone is about to blow a gasket.
Well, you know what? Everyone is singing Roberts' praises here, but I'm not convinced that he would be a vote to overturn Roe. I am absolutely not convinced of that. And if that happens, are we going to bring out the impeachment petitions?
As I said, this is taking on a life of its own. I mean, in another thread people are calling Jim Dobson a liar because he says that some of the other potential candidates took their names out of the running because they didn't want to go through this process. What possible reason would Dobson have to lie about that? And can people not understand that everyone isn't a Freeper ... we're actually a minority in this country, IMHO ... and not everyone is itching for and spoiling for and ready to go to the mattresses and be examined with a proctoscope in this kind of fight?
I am not impressed with Medved or Starr. Sowell is worth listening to, however.
The problem is there should be a bit of evidence before the hearings. There is none except for her friendship with Bush. I agree with you that we should know more but it must not be easy to continuously defend Bush's nominee with so little information. Cautious skepticism seems a more rational path to me...If she truns out to be great..great...but the fact that we will only have the hearings to go on leave me a little short on the confidence scale...How will we know the answers she gives (to the questions posed) really represent her since she has no record that would confirm whatever she says at the hearings....The fact is this is a mess that should never have occurred...regardless of how afraid anyone is of an open debate on a well defined nominee. The debate itself has caused FReeper to insult Freeper. I have followed your posts calling out this problem of vitriol and they seem to always be directed toward chastizing those most concerned about Miers and never toward her arch defenders...One wonders at the fairness of that if you are really concerned about the rhetoric and not just shutting down the debate.....As it is we are stuck and we should not be.