ConfirmThem

By Carol Platt Liebau Posted in Analysis and Predictions — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Yesterday on Hugh Hewitt's show, Fred Barnes made an interesting point. To the extent that any Miers opponents are hoping or expecting Republican senators to vote against the nomination, it will pretty well have to be those who were elected post-Ginsburg confirmation. How, after all, can Republicans who voted in favor of Ginsburg reasonably oppose Miers?

To that, I would add: As I wrote below, I stand second to no one in my admiration for Justice Clarence Thomas. He is a great man and a magnificent justice. But how can the Republicans who deemed his credentials at the time of his nomination sufficient for elevation now turn around and oppose Miers?

And finally, how 'bout this one: For years, conservatives have, quite rightly, been pointing out that it's the President's prerogative to appoint Supreme Court justices (as many conservatives did, right before voting in favor of Breyer and Ginsburg). And more recently, they've been adding, also quite rightly, that if the Democrats want to pick justices with a philosophy, background and credentials they like, they'll need to get one of their own elected. Does the validity of this argument change if one substitutes the term "anti-Miers conservatives" for "Democrats" in the immediately preceding sentence? And is it good for all of us in the long run if this particular argument is invalidated by our behavior now?