No Runny Eggs

Lance Burri over at the Badger Blog Alliance suggested that everybody read Thomas Sowell’s take on who is to “blame” for the Miers nomination. It is a wonderfully-written and -reasoned piece, but I can’t reach the same conclusions as Thomas Sowell.

Chief Justice Roberts was originally a replacement for Justice O’Connor, and his confirmation was already considered a foregone conclusion before Chief Justice Rehnquist died and Roberts’ nomination was changed to the Rehnquist/Chief Justice slots. While the Roberts-for-O’Connor vote probably wouldn’t have been 78-22, where did 22 Dems, 1 “independent”, and 6 RINOs go in the week between his confirmation and Harriet Miers’ nomination so that we couldn’t have another Roberts’-like nominee, much less attempt to push the envelope with a more-conservative one?

Sowell does answer where the ‘Rat support went; they’re backed into a corner after being beaten down so completely. However, where did the 6 RINOs go? Did not the 7 RINOs on the “Gang of 14” say that if a judicial filibuster was used and it wasn’t an “extraordinary circumstance”, that they would not automatically vote against a rule change to take that off the table? It would seem to me that a filibuster of a Roberts-like nominee for O’Connor’s seat, after they were willing to accept Roberts himself for O’Connor, would not be an “extraordinary circumstance”, but then I have a vested interest in seeing a more judicially-conservative Supreme Court.

Taking Sowell’s suggestion that the administration be held for its shortcomings, I can and will fault President Bush for campaigning for Sen. Specter in the Pennsylvania primary, ignoring the tradition of remaining neutral in primaries and knowing full well that Specter would stab him in the back like he did. I don’t automatically buy the line that Pat Toomey couldn’t have won the general election. The infamous “gang of 14”, which was left unmentioned by Sowell and is more responsible for this than anything else, is the fault of Senate Majority “leader” Bill Frist, who is following in the same general track as former Senate Pubbie “leader” Trent “Cave-A-“Lott. Again, I ask where the support that was there for the Roberts-for-O’Connor nomination went.

To me, it’s hard to imagine Miers being better than O’Connor on almost any issue. Her religious background is indeed encouraging, but I seem to recall a former Democratic failure of a President, Jimmy Carter being an evangelical Christian. As for how she would rule on individual cases, the larger record is rather contradictory.

On the abortion issue, the only one where there doesn’t seem to be a contradictory record, she does indeed seem to be a major improvement over O’Connor. Even there, that effect is limited. While states will likely finally be able to start regulating late-term (specifically, partial-birth) abortions as Roe v Wade allegedly allows them to do (and, if the polls are to be believed, the vast majority of Americans want), there still is a majority that supports the underpinnings of both Roe and the newer Casey.