Miers’ nomination has been under withering criticism ever since Bush announced her selection on Oct. 3. There were widespread complaints about her lack of legal credentials, doubts about her ability and assertions of cronyism because of her longtime association with Bush.
The nomination drew fire across the political spectrum and caused a rebellion among the conservative core of Bush’s supporters who doubted her qualifications and wanted a nominee who they felt would be a reliable vote against abortion, affirmative actions and other hot-button issues.
And now the Dems probably wait and hope.
One reason why Democrats might hesitate to sink Miers is concern about what might happen next. There are at least three scenarios. In the first scenario, Bush capitulates to his right wing base and nominates a known candidate with excellent credentials who is an ideological conservative in the Scalia/Thomas mold. Then Democrats are worse off than they would have been with Miers.
But not really worse off.
Democrats who care about the institution of the Court, and who care about the future of the Constitution, should want good people on the bench even if their views about the Constitution differ in important respects from their own. That is what it means to act in the public interest and for the public good: to safeguard and protect the vitality and the quality of the key institutions of American government-- whether they be the Congress, the President, or the courts.