Still More on Nominee Miers: Reasons for Both Disappointment and Optimism

Following up my comments below on selecting a close associate for the Supreme Court, I note that John Hinderaker of Power Line sums up well the disappointment of many serious conservative thinkers:

Republican Presidents should be known for putting the most highly qualified, brilliant legal thinkers on the federal appellate courts, especially the Supreme Court. If the Democrats want to nominate hacks, that's fine. But the Republicans have a stable of potential nominees who are leaders in the profession and are top-notch thinkers in the tradition of Scalia and Thomas. John Roberts was one, and he is typical of the kind of nominee that the public should expect from Republican Presidents. There were plenty more where Roberts came from. President Bush missed an opportunity to drive home with the public the fact that the most brilliant and most principled thinkers in the legal profession are conservatives, not liberals.

I must unhappily admit that I agree. Read the whole thing and see what you think.

Meanwhile, Hugh plugs along, making good points in support of the nomination. Hugh's bottom line: She'll vote the right way. Yes, there is great comfort in that assurance, which I also accept, and it ought to be enough to quiet down those who claim Miers' nomination is some kind of sharp betrayal to conservatives. It is not.

As the reality of how Miers will vote becomes clearer, there will be screaming from the left, but the Dems are in no position to oppose her now unless something comes out in the hearings. She'll be confirmed in a walk, and we will be left unhappy that Bush did not strike a blow for conservative thinking, but happy at the way the Supreme Court decides cases.

At least we hope so.