Friday, October 14


Bulldogpundit, in referencing a New York Times' Op-Ed piece by Matthew Scully defending the Miers' nomination, gets to the heart of the matter and expresses what many who support Miers don't seem to get about those of us who question the nomination and would prefer to see her name withdrawn (which won't happen, of course):

But dear God, can someone, anyone, point me to a CONCRETE example that Miers would be a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, which is what the President promised us in 2000 and 2004? What in all these highly admirable qualities, tells us that she will be a strict constructionist?

Can we hope that she'll be another Scalia or Thomas? Of course. But given the stakes here, and the experiences and assurances we had in the past, we don't want to hope. We want to be as certain as we can, which is why many of us were begging for a Rogers-Brown, Owen, Luttig, or Williams. This isn't about Harriet Miers, this is about making sure, as much as possible, that we have as many strict constructionists on the Court as long as possible.

FOLLOW-UP: "Captain Ed" covers the Scully piece as well in this post and he doesn't mince words.

FOLLOW-UP II: Lorie Byrd of "Polipundit" must have read a different Scully piece than Bulldogpundit and Captain Ed! Of course, Lorie has used a pro-Miers' set of filters from the onset, I believe.