Due to pressure put on senators by conservatives opposed to Miers, the most difficult questions will likely come from Republicans, rather than Democrats. Instead of questions about how cases will be decided in the future—questions nominees cannot and should not answer – inqureries questions will pertain to Miers’ past statements and actions and her general judicial philosophy. These are questions she would have to answer and answer quite convincingly in order to garner enough votes for confirmation.
Because questions would come from senators seeking to find out whether or not the nominee is a true conservative, the questions asked would be more substantive than in the past. I think it is even possible that the debate over judicial philosophy, which many conservatives have been itching for, could take place. If the Miers nomination makes it to the hearing stage, and the hearings are, as I predict, different than those in the past, much of the credit will go to the opponents of the nomination for the role they played in both educating and applying pressure to Republican senators.
It is entirely appropriate that conservatives look into Miers’s past and voice their concerns and even their opposition, if that is their position. What I have disagreed with over the past few weeks is the tactic of some Miers opponents to attempt to get the President to withdraw the nomination by telling him loudly through various media outlets that he is wrong and stupid. Just as this tactic didn’t work when Democrats tried it with the war in Iraq (and other issues such as tax cuts), it will not persuade George W. Bush. Carol Platt Liebau put it this way, “Too much of the criticism has been premature, overly personal, or deeply unfair — and almost guaranteed to get the president’s “back” up, rather than convince him that perhaps other choices would be better.”
As emphasis shifts from personal feelings toward President Bush over the Miers nomination to issues of judicial philosophy, an opportunity exists to communicate with and influence those in the Senate to either go forward with tough, informative hearings or for those in the Senate to inform the president that there is not sufficient support for the nomination to continue. There are those on both sides of the nomination with valid reasons for opposing positions. It is possible to be a strong and effective advocate for either position and still be respectful of each other. I hope that is what we will see from here forward.