It is a political court. It is an oligarch that Jefferson feared. The cat is out of the bag, and there is no putting it back (without a few constitutional ammendments). The court is about counting votes. That's all it is. If our president has nominated 2 people that will vote with Thomas and Scalia.... then we'll be fine.
And this is not about "votes."
First of all, even if Miers is a firm anti-Roe vote that execrable, ill-conceived decision will remain intact, since the majority of the Court will still be irrevocably committed to preserving Roe.
Secondly, even if there were a majority to reverse Roe, it would not matter, if there were not a correspondingly legally sound basis for its reversal.
Whatever victory you will have achieved will be ephemeral, and only last as long as those jurists are on the Court, the tortured constitutional interpretation that led to Roe arising-de novo-once a more liberal president was in power.
Our current lamentable jurisprudence with regard to the Constitution did not manifest itself spontaneously.
There was a concerted effort-undertaken with malice of forethought-by radical legal scholars to pervert the original intent of this nation's bedrock legal document.
This is an endeavor that has been sculpted over the course of four decades, which has led to an imposing-but intellectually bankrupt-edifice that will be incredibly difficult to disassemble.
In order to reshape the Court you need a keen intellect, a cool temperament, and an unstinting courage that God only endows a chosen few with.
Harriet Miers is not equipped to fulfill the mission she's been tasked with.
You missed the point. There is no way to know if a person will vote "with Thomas and Scalia" unless you have a lot of judicial rulings to analyze.
Republicans have done it your way for too long and have been continually disappointed. When you appoint a judicial activist, you never know how they are going to rule long term. The only thing you can be sure of is that they will eventually veer to the left.
The republicans should face reality and realize that there methods of just looking at results and asking questions just doesn't work.
When we start picking justices because of their activism and political leanings, that is when we get into trouble. Why continue the bleeding? Why not pick someone with a sold judicial philosophy track record of being an originalist rather than just taking a person's word for it?