Well said, Pat. I have been checking your blog every few hours in the hope that you would comment on the psychology of what's happening.

I'm not in your field, but I wonder to what extent the extreme reaction represents somewhat of a transference of the anger which has built up over the past few months --- anger at the continuing Cindy Sheehan hype, at the Katrina Bush-bashing, etc. --- combined with being fed up with the perception that GWBush is counting on his conservative supporters to defend his choices (e.g., Roberts & Federalist Society) rather than taking an active role himself. (I know I"m not using the right terminology, which is one reason I look for your analysis.)

Several bloggers have had some good analysis (Hugh Hewitt being one,varifrank
being another.)

Looking forward to your thoughts on the subject.
crosstalk | Email | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 12:46 am | #

I don't think the makeup of the court is unimportant, as there can be lasting effects in those chosen by a president. I would like to know the reasons for choosing a specific person, in the voice of the president himself ("Trust me!" Isn't suitable). Beyond that, yes, it should be a yea or nay vote, with no carping from either side.
Oh Blutige Hölle | Email | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 4:31 am | #

Of course the makeup isn't unimportant, but given that once people are on the court, they can do whatever they want and are free from ideology, what is all the big fuss. How would we ever know if anyone would do what we happen to consider the "right" thing? It makes no sense to get so riled up (especially when we voted for a nutcase like Ginsberg --and if you read the things she'd written before her nomination, you would have to agree she was reallllllly out of the mainstream). Que cera cera and all that. This is just so....destructive and pointless.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 6:55 am | #

I really disagree about your take on the importance of the court here. It has and will play an important role in the GWoT. Some of its rulings have been intrumental in liberating terrorist activity in the U.S., and doubtless its future rulings probably will as well.

But, I do agree wholeheartedly with your take on the brat-like words and actions of some of the conservative dissenters.
Steve | Email | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 9:07 am | #

Those on the right who have expressed so much anger at this nomination, haven't convinced me why I should be angry.
Some said the same thing's about Robert's, but after I heard him make mincemeat out of the best the Senate has to offer, without note's, I was convinced he was a great choice.
Ben Conrad | Email | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 9:33 am | #

Steve, noone is asking questions about how the proposed justices are going to vote on issues related to the GWOT are they? All anyone cares about is Roe v Wade. I think that's crazy.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 9:35 am | #

And, it's not that I think the SC is unimportant. It is. So is the Executive branch and the Legislative branch. But behaving as if it were the end of the world as we know it if someone gets on that you don't agree (or think doesn't agree with you) is also crazy.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 9:37 am | #

Well as an expatriate I tend to be a one issue guy and its the GWOT. I really agree with you here about the priorities and this is the first thing I've read that really caught how I feel about the Meirs debate. Roberts was such a good pick - so good no one could really fault him. The way it should be - even when liberal presidents are doing the nominating. I can see that many people are frustrated because this nomination doesn't clearly move the court to the right, but gee it isn't like Hillary nominated her.
lgude | Email | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 11:20 am | #

Smack! Outta the park homerun.
sigmund, carl and alfred | Email | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 2:11 pm | #

Doubters of Bush should read Hugh Hewitt's report of a former military guy's analysis on the issue. I heard this discussed on Hewitt's radio show, but it's mentioned somewhere on his blog (scroll down).

The point is: Bush is a very very clever poker player and strategist, and he knows what he's doing. OK, I'm not giving reasons here, but the Hewitt analysis made sense to me.

Judging from what I've seen of Bush since 9-11, he's the brainiest President we've had since Lincoln or the great unsung Polk.

What did James K. Polk do? Check it out. Few can match his accomplishments, yet he has almost no rep.
Promethea | Email | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 3:06 pm | #

Firstly off, spot on!

Almost 20 million more people voted in 2004 than in 2000. It was all about the war.

I am looking forward to seeing how this kerfuffle will affect the political debate. I suspect that the Conservative pontificators are going to wish that that was only egg on their faces.
Roy Lofquist | Email | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 3:20 pm | #

“Steve, noone is asking questions about how the proposed justices are going to vote on issues related to the GWOT are they? All anyone cares about is Roe v Wade. I think that's crazy.”

It's not just about Roe v Wade... that's why you are seeing so many people flipping their lid over this nomination, where Roberts passed without that much fuss.  People also care about affirmative action, and McCain Feingold, etc....  Bush twice campaigned on the promise to nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, and going back on that promise was the straw that broke the camel's back for some conservatives who have been pissed at him about a number of other things.

I am one who is wants to know how they will vote on GWOT-related cases...  and it baffles me how Bush could even consider nominating someone who would have to recuse herself on such cases.
Watcher | Email | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 3:29 pm | #

Watcher, the post on your site makes some good points and I especially resonate with Krauthammer's analysis. I am not arguing for confirmation of Miers --I truly don't care at this point one way or the other. I'm arguing for people to shut up and listen to what she has to say and then vote on her and not to drag down the Administration, the Republican Party, the Conservative base with it. If she gets rejected, fine. If she gets approved, fine. But you are being disingenuous about the Roe v Wade thing. It matters far too much to both Democrats and Republicans. I personaly think in retrospect it was a bad decision by the court (although at the time, I felt differently); and it has caused deep rifts in our society that may never heal and has had a major role in the current angry, hysterical and irrational rhetoric on many social issues. Nevertheless, the GWOT is still my main priority and if the Republicans fall apart, that will be far more disastrous for that effort than Miers being on the Supreme Court and having to recuse herself on some decisions.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 4:24 pm | #

In re, Roe vs Wade, I think we should all learn to swim.
Oh Blutige Hölle | Email | Homepage | 10.12.05 - 4:25 am | #