Replies

I apparently am not as much a conservative as I had previously thought. The anti-Miers side leads me to believe that compared to them, I must be a screaming, (Howard Deaniac) liberal.

I really don't see what is so wrong with her. Unless it is that the really hard core of our side just wanted a Bork like candidate, and nothing else would suffice.

I just wanted what Bush Promised.

In 2000, George W. Bush repeated over and over again – first on the stump and then in 2001 at the Presidential podium – that he would appoint judges “in the mold” of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Justice Clarence Thomas had already been an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States since 1991. In 2000, Justice Clarence Thomas had a clear record as a conservative and a constitutional originalist. In 2000, everyone knew what George W. Bush meant when he said he would appoint judges “in the mold” of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

George W. Bush did not say that he would appoint judges “in the mold” of Clarence Thomas as Clarence Thomas was back in 1991 when his record was less clear and many Conservatives still had doubts about him.

In 2000, George W. Bush DID NOT PROMISE he would nominate a stealth candidate who we would have to trust to be “in the mold” of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Bush backed down from a much needed public debate on Conservatism. By doing so, he has created a real incentive for judges who aspire to be nominated to higher courts to avoid creating clear conservative records for themselves.

I really don't see what is so wrong with her. Unless it is that the really hard core of our side just wanted a Bork like candidate, and nothing else would suffice.

The nomination is more than "about her." The nomination shrinks from displaying and advocating conservatism.

Post 24 above describes a concern that is not about the nominee as a judge, but rather an artifact of being timid.