[dwswager]

Harriet Miers? The argument was not that she was not conservative, it was that she was not qualified!

Personally, I don't want someone that is conservative, I want someone that is principled! Are they willing to allow bad law to stand if it is constitutional and kill good law if it is not. I want someone that rules on points of law, not votes on policy issues. Basically, I'll take another Thomas or Scalia. O'connor was great on property issues only because she was a western rancher's daughter. In other words, she voted for property rights because that was personal ox she had seen gored before. She also voted on social issue. She lacked the proper temperament to rule on the points of law.

[Paloma_55]

You missed my first post on this subject which was the day she was nominated. I said at the time that I would have preferred a Janice Rogers Brown, am extremely conservative, and was very disappointed.

But...

Today, Charles Schumer stated on Fox News that the Conservatives had demonstrated that the Senate should determine the qualifications of a nominee based upon what they deem important, not simply whether or not that person is "qualified".

This is the argument I was making from the beginning. By attacking Miers because she was not what *we* want, we gave the Democrats the moral authority to oppose ANY judicial nominee simply because they are not what *they* want.

Worse yet, we gave Olympia Snow, John (the traitor) McCain, Arlen Spectre, and all of the liberal Republicans free reign to oppose any conservative judge that comes up.

Hooray.. we won the battle!! Hip Hip Hooray...err..ooops... was that our head that just got blown off?