One problem with the "sacrifice" theory is that Miers currently has a job in the White House -- and might well keep it, if she is not confirmed. And it's a job that requires at least some contact with senators. If I intended to sacrifice a nominee, I would pick an outsider who would go home after they were defeated, rather than someone who would have to continue to work with the senators who rejected her.

That would certainly make sense if it was her plan to stay. I'm just thinking about it as a possibility. The thing about Bush is that people know that he ups the ante when crossed. If the left is seen as derailing this moderate nomination, there'll be hell to pay and they'll get someone like Janice Rogers Brown -- or someone to her right (and the Republicans would be in no mood for filibustering). If the right wing stabs Bush in the back, he might turn around and nominate Cass Sunstein or Lawrence Tribe.

I think the senators know this, which might work to Meirs' advantage.

Murray Rothbard wore a bow-tie. I once looked like Murray Rothbard in a picture from a high school reunion. Interesting fellow anyway.

"Even if [Judge Carswell] is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they -- a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters, and stuff like that there."

The ultimate in egalitarianism. Every Leftist blog or magazine should have that quote as its motto. The Left seeks an equal distribution of wealth (or poverty) in economics (e.g., progressive income tax). They push progressive (permissive, regressive) education in public schools with no grading or other elitism to discriminate between the smart kids and the dumb kids. They preach moral relativism so as not to discriminate between the good and the "morally challenged". They preach that grafitti on a bathroom wall is equal to Shakespeare, nails scratching on a blackboard equal to Beethoven. They condemn as "looksism" the discrimination of the eye between the beautiful and the ugly.

I have been toying with this "sacrifice" idea as well. I have not written about it, but it was the most coherent explanation I could come up with in the hours after her nomination was announced.

Perhaps he does not have to rely on the existence of the senators' own concerns to hang her out to dry, though. Maybe he is banking on the ABA giving her a low to middling rating, and let the senators premise their stated objections on that. That basis might even work to soften a later working relationship with those Senators, as compared to an all-out assault from all sides.

This is perhaps wishful thinking, though. I could name probably a couple of dozen (conservative-leaning) people the president should have named before Harriet Miers. And yet, he looks ever serious that she was the most qualified person for the job. I'm still having a hard time swallowing it.

I have no idea what President Bush's strategy is.

George F. Will (the man with the bow-tie) wrote that John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were "lap-dancing on the Constitution", and he supported Bork, so I don't necessarily trust his judgements on who is a Constitutional expert.

As for McCain's Free Speech Strangulation Act, all three branches of government are guilty of violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution: MCain for proposing it in the first place, Congress for passing it, Bush for signing it, and the Supreme Court for upholding such a monstrosity.

Helpful thoughts all.

This whole thing is very tough to analyze, especially because of the difficulty posed by how to approach it. Reality and pragmatism and ideals seem to be in a three way collision.

No matter how I look at it, I'm unhappy about this nomination.

And I'd be unhappy even if I supported the nomination, but I'm not even sure of that.

(I need a clear sign! If only she would growl, snarl, bark. . .)

The sacrifice theory doesn't seem to match Bush's character.

I am pretty sure that Miers is, in Bush's mind, the most conservative Judge he can find that he feels he can count on to back executive powers to fight the War on Terror as he feels he (and his successors) need to in order to win.

That is probably his first goal. A pure 'orgininalist' couldn't be counted on to do that. Roberts I bet can. Miers I am sure can. IF they are conservative in others ways that is good, but executive power in war as the key on this nomination.