Too bad about Miers, but ...

Must. Say. Something. About Miers.

On a personal level there is sadness. As a human being she deserved better than she got.

That can probably be said for nearly every one of Dubya's nominees that require advise and consent approval, whether they survived or not. The difference here is that a lot of the volleys against Miers came not from the front, but from the rear echelons.

That's where one has to look at a Supreme Court nomination in a greater context than the merely human response.

Miers' failure as a candidate was not so much her failure but the president's. It has been reported that initially Miers didn't want the job. However, it's hard to say no when the president, and perhaps his wife, are twisting your arm. As the time got closer to the actual hearings, however, it became obvious that no real vetting had taken place (the process where an administration goes through background materials and prepares a case FOR the nominee).

If anyone thinks that the nay-saying on Miers was getting ugly on the right, it was tea party chatter compared to what was going to happen before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And where John Roberts had former Senator Fred Thompson at his side to help run the guantlet (unnecessarily, it turns out), where was Miers' champion, other than a busy president himself? She really could've used one.

Some, like Hugh Hewitt, are weeping today that the conservative voices of America have descended down the same vituperative trail as the moonbat liberals, having "denied" Miers a clear up and down vote.

Hugh, we did the president a favor. While he seems intent on proving that he can spend "political capital" from last year's elections, we'd like him to at least shop around a little first. A "no" vote in the Senate would have cost him more capital than Miers' withdrawal letter does.

And all the fancy talk of how appointments to the federal bench should be above the merely partisan and political is just so much hot air. Yes, conservatives smiled and twiddled their thumbs when Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, taking the non-partisan high road. What did we get? An internationalist jurist who sees her mission to remake America by judicial fiat from the top down. Without a fight. How civilized we were!

We did not fight the good fight then because we wished to take "the high road." Problem: liberals don't care whether we take the high road or not, because they have found that the low road works just fine, especially when we aren't there, blocking the path.

Does the president have the stomach for a good philosophical fight over judicial philosophy? He said he was spoiling for one when running for office in 2000 and 2004. Well, the time has come to put someone in the ring who will make the case for traditional constitutional law as defined by the Constitution itself.

Pick a good one, Mr. President, and we will be in your corner, emptying the spit bucket and fetching the liniment.