As I've said to friends and associates many times since the announcement of the Miers nomination, I hope her name is withdrawn before we get to the hearings. Everyone says that we will know what she believes when we get her in front of the Judiciary Committee - as if that should be some sort of comfort.
There’s a major problem with that.
What if, in the hearings, she somehow reveals that she will be the next Sandra Day? Judiciary committee Republicans will be in a tough spot. They’ve been clamoring for years that nominees deserve an up-or-down vote and should not be “held languishing” or killed in committee. So, the committee will be forced to send her nomination to the floor.
What happens next?
Well, GOPers who don’t like her won’t be numerous enough to kill the nomination, considering that 23 Democrats were willing to vote for Roberts. If they were willing to give a “thumbs-up” to him, surely they will do so for a nominee that the true conservatives in the Senate don’t like - especially if they think she could be the "swing" vote for the Left that O'Connor was. The New York Times published a similar thought in their lead editorial yesterday:
If Ms. Miers's nomination has caused Republicans to suddenly acquire standards, it may be causing Democrats to forget theirs. Many appear to have calculated that Ms. Miers would be a more moderate justice than anyone the Bush administration would nominate if she were defeated. Perhaps as a result, Senate Democrats have been remarkably restrained about criticizing Ms. Miers's close ties to the president and the thinness of her resume.
And surely Republicans won’t allow themselves to be held solely responsible for killing her nomination on the floor - there will need to be enough Dems to team up.
And we know the Republicans won’t filibuster her, they say they don’t believe in it.
The only way, in my view, to prevent her elevation to the Supreme Court is to keep her from getting to the “hearings” stage. I hope I’m wrong, but fear I’m not.
