A nominee who doesn't cave under pressure?

We don't want her cause why?

Anybody can resist pressure if they've got the President backing them up. It doesn't say anything at all about Quag.

I've listened to the arguments, even offline you can hear the howling, and they seem to number exactly three:
1) It's not who I'd name;
2) I DON"T KNOW how she'll vote; and
3) I DON"T TRUST the president.

My responses are
1) get elected president;
2) if you want a judge then 2) must be the case; and
3) so he is the mindless dolt the left has been saying he is? why didn't you vote for someone you trust?

I have no pretensions of having a background on SCOTUS members or process, but one main thrust of the complaints about this nomination seem a little absurd.

Reading through the devastating [note spelling] "quotes" on Kevin's links, I keep seeing comments about her qualifications, or lack thereof. What are the qualifications required to be a Supreme Court Justice? Is she qualified to run for President, Mayor, Assistant to the Chief Dogcatcher? And my gosh, you mean to say she is not a dyed in the wool [insert any desired political label]? I didn't realize that we only wanted predictable politically committed judges.

I would think that three key qualities of a potential SCOTUS judge would be service, integrity and excellence. I see that she's demonstrated commitment to community/national service, no evidence I can see for lack of integrity, so the third leg of the tripod, excellence, is all I can see that is appropriate to challenge. The key is to figure out excellence in what.

Some of the quotes attempt to address the issue, but they don't sway me either way. All I see is that the President chose to decide based on who might be most likely to withstand the microscopic vivisection that has accompanied the process in the past. It sounds like some more "qualified" choices bowed out. Perhaps we should be analyzing and criticizing the process that intimidated these other potential nominees, or maybe debate whather someone who is intimidated isn't qualified.

Being a professorial type with much written and published may not be the best qualification. I do believe a certain previously unsuccessful nominee with that background is among the sour grapers.

I know in medicine, you are usually better off being treated by a rank and file member of a department with some track record of success than the Chairman of the Department with a 28 page resume.

So Kevin, I don't find the quotes devastating. They seem more a collection of gossip, sour grapes and pendantic rhetoric. Kinda like a Wizbang comment section about evolution and creationism... ... or one of my long posts.

When you learn to spell "devastating," perhaps I'll be more impressed with your prescience. It might prove you were better read.

Not much paper trail to go on...

However, consider her testimony in the voting rights case. Would any serious scholar of the Constitution and supporter of "not legislating from the bench" refer to the Federalist Society as a "politically charged" organization (that she would avoid for that reason) while at the same time being a member of a Democrat political organization?

She wasn't asked about the Federalist Society. She volunteered them as an example of a "politically charged" group that she would avoid joining.

This voluntary demonstration of her thinking convinces me that she would be another Souter.

Go to the Federalist Society website and see what a "politically charged" organization they are.

Neither did old Joe Kennedy and look at all the trouble that caused!

anon-

My responses are
1) get elected president;
2) if you want a judge then 2) must be the case; and
3) so he is the mindless dolt the left has been saying he is? why didn't you vote for someone you trust?

1)The fact that I'm not President does not prohibit me from criticizing the choice that was made.

2)I know how she'll vote- she will vote in favor of things like Grutter, McCain-Feingold, and Kelo... Bush has shown that he favors all three- and she was nominated to be his 'proxy'.

3)I've had 4 chances in my life to vote for a person named 'Bush'- I'm 0-4! Am I allowed to state my objection to this nomination?

Well, I'm glad you posted this, so I know it's still not "safe" to return to RWN. Please announce when he's over the psychosis, because I'm not reading sites that can't stop flipping out about Harriet Miers until this is all over. Repetitive, annoying, blah blah blah.

I haven't looked at the link you provided, but I have no need to. I seriously doubt it's "devastating" (or anything new) unless one is of the same opinion as Hawkins. I could dredge up plenty of "devastating" arguments that support the nomination, but I doubt those who are anti-Miers would characterize them as such. And no, I'm not going to waste anyone's time linking them here.

Hmmmm.

If anybody doesn't understand the issues involved with Harriet Miers, then you simply have been living under a rock. Frankly I'm going to write essay number 43 on this subject.

By nominating Miers, Bush has create a Supreme Court that is *exactly* the same as the previous Supreme Court. 5 liberals, 3 conservatives and 1 female swing vote that has no background or depth in either Constitutional law or scholarship.

30 frigging years of this crap, endless hours of working on campaigns, thousands of dollars ...

Only to end up with the status quo.

So hey, go ahead and mock the people opposed to Harriet Miers. Go ahead and condemn me in whatever nonsense flavor you like.

When Harriet Miers shows her true colors, I don't want to hear one single complaint. You had your chance and didn't do it. Now you're going to have to deal with it for the next 30 years.

These arguments against Miers are vapid at best and dishonest for the most part.

Is the issue wanting a Right Wing activist judge or a judge that enforces the actual Constitution? Which is it?

Bush knew that more then a couple Repub's up for re-election would screw him if he chose a high profile conservative as a way to try and fool voters in 2006. Bush needed someone HE KNEW would enforce the Constitution, as he promised, not someone who would create their own laws. Bush's history of judicial appointments earns him the benefit of the doubt Vs. the whining by those who do not know Miers.

Bush is right to ignore the loud, minority, extremists. I see who is supporting Miers and who is against her and know which group I feel more comfortable associating with. Look in the mirror folks and ask yourself them same question. After you check your egos of course.