Which leads me onto the second point, which is as a rejoinder to your note that “the variety of life experiences, outside the ivory tower of academe and the appellate courts, in which you see the consequences of your actions, listen to other people’s views…that would make for a good jurist”. While no one would disagree that listening to other people’s views is a bad thing, I am not so convinced that either her experience as a lawyer is a good thing, untethered from an intellectual counterbalance as a Judge or academic, or that her experience in the trenches is a good thing. I explained my concern on the first point here. To the other point, my concern would be that experience with the real-world consequences of one’s judgements is likely to make a Justice pause to consider whether a ruling which is constitutionally necessary should be made if it had far-reaching practical effects. In my view, a Justice should not entertain such concerns. For example, in Blakely v. Washington, I do not think that Justices O’Connor and Kennedy were necessarily mistaken in their dire predictions. My point in rebuttal would simply be “so?”. The bill of rights was written to protect basic rights; in my view, it was not written to make government easy, it was written to make it hard. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion rightly point-blank ignores the concerns of the dissents, because they are immaterial to the point at hand.

My concern is that Miers is too likely to be result-oriented; she has a background in a results-oriented career, without firm anchorage in constitutional theory, and her experience in the trenches may make her like the General who has grown too fond of his men to order the assult.

The President could appoint his pet dog, and at least *some* Senators would come to his defense. That’s how party politics work. When Nixon appointed Carswell and Hainsworth in the 1970s (neither of whom was confirmed), it was pointed out that they were mediocre. One of the Senators replied, “Shouldn’t the mediocre citizens of this country have a voice on the Court?” (Sorry I don’t remember the exact quote, but it went something like that.)

President Bush has nominated White House counsel and Dallas-based attorney Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States. Ms. Miers has never been a judge before, the first such non-judge nomination since that…

Technically, anybody can filibuster. But generally, filibusters are a technique the minority employs to thwart the majority. The Republicans are already in the majority, so if they want to defeat Miers, they have plenty of other ways to do it.

The President’s spin machine is in overdrive, and I’d say it’s clear that Miers will be confirmed unless (and this is a big caveat) there are some serious blots on her background that have not yet come to light.

Dale – if the GOP now turns around and filibusters Myers, we will look preposterous, hypocritical and absurd. Likewise, I disagreed at the time with the strategy of saying “the Senate should defer to the President, just worry about whether he’s qualified” – now conservatives in the Senate, who likely (hopefully) share the concerns of those of us online, have backed themselves into a corner where they cannot vote against Miers with a straight face.

Where I differ is that I think it is Janice Rogers Brown all the way.

Bush gives the Democrats a moderate who can’t pass muster and then puts up a libertarian Black Republican female who has already got a Senate endorsement on paper.

Makes sense to me.

We shall see.

First step. Defeat Miers.