[George W. Bush]

It would be better to hold that kind of anger until the next elections to make sure that stronger conservatives are elected. What is the upside to all this open angry opposition against Bush and Miers? The nomination won't be withdrawn.

So we can tolerate the withdrawal or filibuster of other nominees or their recess appointments but it is unthinkable to have the same happen with Miers, a lawyer without any qualifications or constitutional writings comparable to any of these same nominees?

No.

She can be withdrawn or defeated. And Bush can send up a proper nominee. And this nonsense about how we can't resist it effectively renders the entire Senate role of advice and consent on nominees to be a moot point of the Constitution.

Again, this is false. And the provisions for the Senate confirmation role apply more readily to Miers than to any other nominee in living memory (obvious cronyism toward a nominee who is a personal friend and from the home state of the president and who possesses no other discernable merits for the office). Read the Federalist Papers No. 78 for more on this cronyism concern of the Founders.

Keep in mind that this is life-and-death. The Court overturned Thomas' order to prevent that Missouri abortion. But with O'Connor on the Court, it was sure that the child would be murdered by order of the Court. Roberts did participate in his first abortion ruling but the vote was not disclosed, merely that all justices did vote.

Another murder for our bloodthirsty Sandra. Another 'trust-me' nominee like five others who have stabbed the right-to-lifers and conservatives in the back for decades and leaving a trail of blood in their wake.

A child was murderered again today because we have been too trusting of White House promises for too many decades. Let's not betray the brave conservative judiciary who have suffered so much abuse by the libs and the press by handing them a futile nominee to set their purposes (and ours) to naught.

[Allen H]

"So we can tolerate the withdrawal or filibuster of other nominees or their recess appointments but it is unthinkable to have the same happen with Miers, a lawyer without any qualifications or constitutional writings comparable to any of these same nominees?"

Are you aware of the fact that over 75% of the Supreme Court Justices in the history of this country fit that criteria you described as being unacceptable, including the first Chief Justice, John Jay? 3 of 4 Justices ever had not been judges, and a large number of that 75% were not lawyers either. Renquist wasn’t a judge before he was a Justice either. How did that work? The constitution states very clearly that it does not have to be a judge that is put up to the Supreme Court. And it’s insulting to suggest that after over 30 years as a lawyer, she’s not smart enough and doesn’t know the Constitution. If you don’t know the Constitution, you can’t pass the bar and do what she’s done in her career. This infighting, as I’ve said a million times, accomplishes nothing. It would be far wiser to wait to hear what she has to say before torching her to the ground. But whatever. Fire away. How will you feel in a few months if her findings are right in line with Scalia and Thomas? Will you be as vocal in your admission that you were wrong as everyone is being with their criticism? I’m waiting to actually hear what she has to say before I blast or praise her. You mentioned people who said negative things about her, as though they must be right, but you and others seem to dismiss the dozens of people who have known her personally and professionally for decades and strongly support her qualifications. How do you make that work? You put up people who say what you think, but disregard most people who have spoken about her who actually know her, when they say things you don’t want to hear. That makes no sense. Someone who doesn’t know the Constitution and is a weak minded indecisive person does not get to be one of the 50 top lawyers in the country. Most of these judges that you would want to have the nomination, were never one of the 50 top lawyers in the country when they were lawyers, and Miers was responsible for picking them to put up to W. Bush to be judges.

If Miers turns out to be a suiterite liberal, W. is still doing no worse than Reagan did with Justices. Reagan got burned with o’conner and kennedy. They’ve been moderates at best. I just wish that conservatives would wait until there is something concrete to fire at Miers about. So far, there is not. It’s all speculation and supposition that is being shot at her. And that’s not fact. If everyone would just be patient and wait until the hearings to open up on her and Bush, the conservative movement would be alot better off right now for it. But whatever. IF in a few months it’s evident that Miers is a conservative constructionist Justice, maybe you and others will see fit to spend as much time addressing your friendly fire as you are now addressing how liberal you THINK she will be. I’m nervous about it too and desperately want another Scalia or Thomas, not another souter or o’conner, but until there is something concrete and until she speaks for herself in the hearings, I’m not going to open up on someone based on supposition and what I "think" "may" happen. That’s silly and accomplishes nothing.