[gondramB]

It doesn't hurt that much to have the opposition attack - that's expected in modern politics (unfortunately.)

What hurts is when your friends attack. Look at Nixon and Clinton. As long as their parties were solidly behind them they were safe but then their associates started to doubt...

But even then it wasn't the questioning that hurt the institution, it was the answers.

[Mount Athos]

The disagree with the premise and thrust of the article. Looks like a big straw man attack to me.

All conservatives want is a candidate with a documented history of strict constructionist judicial thought. A justice in the mold of Thomas and Scalia, both of whom wouldn't hesitate to rule against a "conservative" outcome if the constitution required it.

[AZLiberty]

Roberts promise is his oath, his "agenda", that there is no room in the judicial branch for personal agendas or crusading.

Perhaps Roberts can shame the other justices into doing their duty under the constitution. In cases of egregious decisions, he could include in the opposing opinion a call for the impeachment of the offending justices. Nothing personal -- just serving the constitution.

[Bahbah]

What surely is bothering the true conservatives about the Harriet Miers nomination, is that President Bush "knows the heart of this woman and knows how she will rule". This alone should disqualify her.

I found this to be one of the most thoughtful articles written about this nomination. The above sentence troubles me, however, because the President may mean no more by that statement than that he is confident she will adhere to the Constitution. I agree absolutely that that is what is needed. The courts have become completely politicized, and it is this that we should seek to undo rather than repoliticize them with our agenda.