While I'm not a conservative, I completely agree with George Will:

Miers's advocates tried the incense defense: Miers is pious. But that is irrelevant to her aptitude for constitutional reasoning. The crude people who crudely invoked it probably were sending a crude signal to conservatives who, the invokers evidently believe, are so crudely obsessed with abortion that they have an anti-constitutional willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade with an unreasoned act of judicial willfulness as raw as the 1973 decision itself.

In their unseemly eagerness to assure Miers's conservative detractors that she will reach the "right" results, her advocates betray complete incomprehension of this: Thoughtful conservatives' highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path that the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result...

...Democrats, with their zest for gender politics, need this reminder: To give a woman a seat on a crowded bus because she is a woman is gallantry. To give a woman a seat on the Supreme Court because she is a woman is a dereliction of senatorial duty. It also is an affront to mature feminism, which may bridle at gallantry but should recoil from condescension.

As for Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch's invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material.

Found your site through the NASSA movie. I really enjoyed your top commentary refering to the Miers mumbo jumbo. Anyway, what we really need is a REAL Government of leaders who care and not thieve. Your commentary is wonderfully insightful and biting. Thank you.

I find it interesting that the media has decided to measure a SCOTUS nominee soley on the individual's propensity to either support or overturn Roe vs Wade.
Perhaps my opinion is tainted by the fact that I do not have- nor do I support- a womb.... and at my age have no immediate plans for fathering illegitimate children--- still....

I think a better measure of any SCOTUS nominee would be their tendency to support or overturn Kelo, et. al. vs New London; as I feel this decision is more closely related to Constitutional rights- and will ultimately determine if the United States continues as a democracy or gradually spirals into feudalism.

That said, it might be refreshing to see that the 'good ol' boy' network now includes 'good ol' girls'.... but I would much rather see a SCOTUS nominee with actual experience in Constitutional Law rather than good ol girl, Miers.

I'm not a conservative

Ha!

I just don't get why you deny being a conservative, despite your constant state support of conservatives and conservative beliefs and your oppostion of liberal ones. Do you just not like being pigeon-holed, or is there some connontation of the word "conservative" that bothers you?

Anyway, neither here nor there I guess. As for Miers, I have a hard time creating a passionate defense for my "I couldn't care less, one way or the other" belief, as that belief pretty much assumes a lack of passion to begin with. I couldn't care less what her gender is; the whole idea of gender equality is that gender is irrelevant one way or the other to most occupations. I don't care what her religion is; other than the ministry, I don't see what one's religion has to do with someone's occupational qualifications. I wouldn't mind if someone opposed Roe v. Wade because it's a bad reading of the Constitution (show me where in the Constitution there's a right to privacy?) but be a little annoyed if someone opposed it merele because of moral oppostion to abortion. In the case of a Supreme Court justice, I care more about here legal beliefs than moral ones.

As for charge of "cronyism"... I never got why it's a bad thing for a president to nominate someone he knows and trusts. Has there been any president in the history of the US who gave appointments to his enemies? I don't mind a president who puts his friends in various positions as long as that's not the ONLY reason for doing so.

The one thing that's annoyed me to no end since this started is people either supporting or opposing the nomination for reasons irrelevant to her competence for the position. While I'll freely admit I've seen no evidence from her past that especially qualifies her, I haven't seen anything that particularly disqualifies her either. I'd presonally prefer someone with more experience, but the lack of experience I don't see as necessarily a bad thing. Our current president didn't have much political experience before taking office, and I'd submit he's done a fairly competent job.

And that's about as much passion as I can bring to discussion about Miers. Basically, I just don't see anything about her that screams "I'm not qualified," and until I do, I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt. A blank slate may not necessarily be a bad thing. I know some conservatives seemed to actually desire a big fight over a nomination, but the whole point was to get someone wualified, not to rub liberals' noses into a nomination they don't like. If Bush get get a qualified jusge on the court without a fight, more power to him. I think the big irony is that it seems in avoiding a fight with his opposition he caused one with the people you'd expect to support him.

Maybe I've giving him too much credit in thinking that possibly Miers was a throw away candidate he could get people to fight over, then bring in a backup candidate, the one he really intended, and people would be less likely to fight because he/she looks so much better than Miers in comparison, thus avoiding a long fight over the candidate he acutally wants. If so, it's probabably a smart move. If not, I would agree it was pretty "boneheaded," at least politically, but I'm not sure how much a second-term president who doesn't need to worry about getting re-elected cares about smart political moves. Second-termers are usually more concerned about leaving a historical legacy rahter than keeping there side in power (though that doesn't cease to be a consideration, of course.) Then again, maybe he knows something about Miers we don't, though if so I wish he'd tell us.

Until then, I remain firmly neutral. If Miers gets on the court and proves to be completely incompetent, feel free to tell me "I told you so," as long as you grant me the same privilege if she gets on and proves to be exactly what the court needed, someone who actually believes the Constitution means the same thing today as it did when it was written and acts accordingly. I've not seen anot proof that she does or doesn't, though I'd like to assume the president wouldn't pick someone he doesn't based on his statements of what he wants to do with the court. Say what you like about Bush, at least he says what he means and does what he says for the most part. Like Miers, I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt until I see significant reason to do otherwise.

I just don't get why you deny being a conservative, despite your constant state support of conservatives and conservative beliefs and your oppostion of liberal ones.

I know this may be a difficult concept, but I deny being a conservative because I'm not, and have never been a conservative. Does agreeing with some conservative beliefs mean that one is a conservative? Do you think that milk is a healthy drink? So do conservatives. You must be a conservative.

Is someone who is indifferent as to whether or not abortion should be legal a conservative? Is someone who thinks that creationism and "intelligent design" have no place in a science class a conservative? Is someone who thinks that all drugs should be legal a conservative? Is someone who has no problem with human cloning a conservative? If so, then maybe I'm a conservative, but I doubt if most conservatives would agree.

As to Miers, I oppose her because I have been provided with zero evidence that she would be a better justice than dozens of other people who I think would be better, other than the president (the same president who has demonstrated a studied indifference to the Constitution) tells me to trust him. Sorry, but I don't.

One trait that I do apparently share with many conservatives who oppose Miers is a desire for a justice who will interpret the Constitution as the Founders would, and has the capability to persuade other justices to do so. I don't want someone to be put on the court because she's an evangelical Christian, and I don't want someone on the Supreme Court because she give me the political result that I want. I want someone who will rule based on a coherent judicial philosophy that bases rulings on the letter of the document, not on international law, personal moral beliefs, or daily whim. I have no reason to believe that Harriet Miers will do that, and in fact many of the "assurances" that the administration has provided makes me think that she won't.