Sunday, October 23


I oppose the Miers nomination because, even were she to be confirmed in a successful vote on the Senate floor (and the prospect of that appears increasingly unlikely), it would be a Pyrrhic victory for the president and an inestimable setback for conservatives wanting originalists on the Court. It doesn't take a "show and tell," soap opera-style Senate confirmation hearing to learn of the shortcomings in Harriet Miers' credentials. And, regardless, it was altogether imprudent of the president to nominate one so close to him in the first place.

For the good of his two-term presidency and the restoration of a voter base the Republicans sorely need in the upcoming 2006 elections, Miers nomination should be withdrawn. I'd much rather we Republicans overcome the hurdle of liberal, non-thinking, obstructionist Democrats, who rejected the likes of John Roberts (while publicly singing his praises) simply to keep their Soros-fed campaign coffers full, than engage in internecine warfare over a nominee who made no one's short list of esteemed judicial luminaries and who disappoints at every turn.

George W. Bush was anything but a strict constructionist in reading the mandate of the founders of his two-term feast. He turned activist in his selection, reading what he wanted to read, and thinking what he wanted to think. Why then would we have any assurance that Harriet Miers will become, in the final analysis, an originalist of the first order, rather than marching to the beat, Sandra Day O'Conner-style, of her own drum?

NOTE: Please join in The Truth Laid Bare" survey, as I did. Thanks!

NOTE II: Survey Tracking Page