TRUST, BUT VERIFY

I think the outright anger among conservatives over President Bush's choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor is unwarranted and inappropriate at this stage.

Immediately, Bill Kristol came out to whine about being depressed and demoralized by Bush's pick.

Not surprisingly, Ann Coulter, who vehemently opposed John Roberts, is incensed over the nomination of Harriet Miers.

Since the nomination announcement, Mark Levin has devoted his two hours on WABC radio to vent about what a miserable decision Bush made.

Charles Krauthammer dubbed the choice of Miers to be "scandalous."

That's just a sampling of the reaction from the pundits. Many Republican senators are riding on the same bandwagon.

Today's Washington Times reports:

[Twenty-seven] Republican senators -- almost half of his party's members in the chamber -- have publicly expressed specific doubts about Miss Miers or said they must withhold any support whatsoever for her nomination until after the hearings.

...Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said last week that he is perfectly willing to vote against the nomination if he is not convinced that she will be reliably conservative on the high court. That view has been echoed by his fellow committee member Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican.

If Mr. Brownback and Mr. Coburn joined all Democrats on the committee in opposing Miss Miers, her nomination would fail in committee. However, because it is a nomination for the Supreme Court, it would still go to Senate floor for a vote by the entire chamber -- albeit with a negative committee recommendation.

The fate of the Miers nomination before the full Senate is similarly murky because Republicans outside the Judiciary Committee also have expressed doubts.

Sen. George Allen, a Virginia Republican who previously has been strongly supportive of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees, said he's not sure about this one. The best thing Miss Miers' has going for her confirmation, he said last week, is Mr. Bush's record of picking solid conservatives for the bench.

Sen. John Thune, a freshman from South Dakota, said he needs to be convinced, and Sen. Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, has been among the most skeptical, saying, "There are a lot more people -- men, women and minorities -- that are more qualified in my opinion by their experience than [Miss Miers] is."

I don't get it.

The President is entitled to nominate anyone he wants to serve on the Supreme Court. After making his nomination, there are hearings held by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then, the full Senate follows with an up or down vote.

That's the process. I think it should be allowed to work.

I find the degree of arrogance displayed by the conservative pundits and politicians over the Miers nomination to be disturbing.

They seem to be under the impression that they choose the nominee. They seem to believe that they should have been consulted; yet they complained incessantly about Bush consulting with Dems about Supreme Court nominees.

They're acting as if Miers doesn't deserve a fair hearing. Before giving her a chance, they've come out strongly against her.

There's no question they've prejudged her before she has had the opportunity to answer a single question posed by the Judiciary Committee.

The outrage that Bush didn't choose a nominee guaranteed to cause the Dems to filibuster is snowballing. They say that the President wanted to avoid a fight.

If that's the case, Bush's strategy obviously backfired. He has a fight--with some very vocal members and supporters of his own Party.

The outcry is so ear-splitting that Bush was compelled to use his entire weekly radio address to defend his nominee.

After spelling out his nominee's accomplishments, Bush said:

She shares my belief that judges should strictly interpret the Constitution and laws, not legislate from the bench. She understands that the role of a judge is to interpret the text of the Constitution and statutes as written, not as he or she might wish they were written. And she knows that judges should have a restrained and modest role in our constitutional democracy. Like Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Byron White, who were also nominated to the Supreme Court directly from legal positions in the executive branch, Harriet Miers will be prudent in exercising judicial power and firm in defending judicial independence.

That's not good enough for the know-it-all conservatives.

Unlike the Dems, who receive their marching orders and talking points from their leadership and robotically fall in line, some Republicans all too often tend to act as if they are smarter than everyone else in the room. Some freely criticize without being adequately informed.

The Bush administration is asking for trust; but some (most) conservative pundits and politicians have loudly voiced that they do not trust Bush to make an appointment that would be in the judicial likeness of Scalia or Thomas.

At this stage, the disrespect that the talking heads and Republican elected officials have shown the President seems utterly unjustified to me.

Of course, they should express their concerns. However, calls for the Miers nomination to be withdrawn are as nuts as the calls from the far Left were when they screamed that Roberts had to be defeated. All that teeth grinding, prior to the confirmation hearings, is counterproductive.

In the case of Roberts, people on the Left rushed to judgment and came off looking like fools. His confirmation hearings revealed that he was unequivocally qualified to serve.

Now, in the case of Miers, people on the Right are similarly stumbling all over themselves in their rush to oppose her.

Is it too much to ask for Republicans to allow Miers to present herself to the Judiciary Committee BEFORE they hit the warpath?

Why not let the process play out?

TRUST, BUT VERIFY.

At this point, while it's reasonable to express concerns and even doubts about Bush's choice, it is unreasonable to be declaring such intense opposition.

If the confirmation hearings reveal that Miers is not competent to occupy a seat on the Supreme Court, then it is the duty of the Republicans to oppose her nomination and vote against her.

Unlike the SOP of the Dems, with their hermetically sealed united front, I don't think that Republicans should march in lockstep with Bush. I don't think that they should follow Bush blindly. I do believe, however, that Republicans should take their griping down a number of notches.

TRUST, BUT VERIFY.

It's time for Republicans to verify that Miers will be a justice who will interpret the law, not write it.

That needs to be determined BEFORE crucifying her.

While there is a lot of noise about Miers inside the beltway, the rank and file of the Party is reacting much more calmly.

According to a survey by the Washington Times:

The Republican base across the country looks more favorably on President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court than the cluster of conservative critics who are opposing her inside the Beltway, according to a Washington Times survey of state party chairmen.

Most Republican chairmen interviewed expressed confidence in Mr. Bush's choice and said they were picking up little, if any, criticism from their rank and file, though some said they wanted to know more about Miss Miers and expected to learn more once the Senate confirmation process gets under way.

That makes sense. VERIFY.

If the conservative pundits and Republican elected officials continue on their present course, I think they will succeed in weakening President Bush and putting the effectiveness of his second term in serious jeopardy, much to the joy of the Dems.

Even worse, they may be dooming a judicial nominee intending to consistently vote along the lines of Scalia and Thomas.

That would be a lose-lose scenario. Wouldn't it?

TRUST BUSH, BUT VERIFY MIERS.