I'm beginning to understand your view toward those of us who were less than impressed by McCain & Co.'s filibuster deal. The kneejerk reactions and subsequent inability to listen to reason can be more than a bit annoying.

This should put that deal to the test, too. So maybe you should start a book pool on who will be the first pundit-head and/or Senator to call this an "extraordinary circumstance" and advocate breaking the deal and starting the filibusters.

They won't filibuster, they can't.

Raoul: The deal was a bad deal, but not because it will lead to a filibuster of Harriet Miers.

More generally, it is columns like Will's that will push me towards strong support of her nomination.

David-- Did you see Pat Buchanan's article? That should push you over the edge.

Somehow, possibly with a straight face, he managed to write about how disappointing this nomination is to "those who invested such hopes in him."

Timothy: Thanks for the link. I particularly liked "This is not to disparage Harriet Miers ... [b]ut her qualifications for the Supreme Court are nonexistent."

I think Miers will do just fine - but the filibuster deal is becoming a smelly albatross. While we would like to believe that McCain will do anything to satisfy the GOP base (thereby enforcing its provision on the nuclear option), it is an unknown until tested. Perhaps neither side wants that. But then the "Deal" becomes like the War Powers Act, sitting up on the shelf, gathering dust, until the most inopportune moments.

Holding foreign policy hostage to such 'laws' (throw in the Boland amendment), is like holding campaigns & elections hostage to McCain-Feingold. Restrictions like this frustrate and dirty up what should be very clear.

Let me add one more reason to support Miers. As I said in this post.

"Finally, she seems to annoy, at least mildly, most law professors. Why do I find that a plus? Because law professors are drawn, quite naturally, to interesting judges who write interesting opinions. But I think most citizens share my preference for boring judges who write boring opinions."

And law professors aren't the only ones who have that desire for entertainment.

Oh, and thanks to Timothy for that reminder about our friend Pat's contribution. There was something truly beautiful about Buchanan telling us about the importance of qualifications.

You just get the feeling that Miers could be confirmed to the Court and concur 100 percent of the time with Scalia and/or Thomas over the next decade, and people like Will or the folks over at The Corner would still be miffed about the gravitas of her opinions, as though they were sampling the rulings' nuiances like someone evaluating vintages on a Napa Valley wine tour.

While they do have a legitimate complaint that Miers isn't a known quantity because of her lack of a paper trail, the teeth gnashing has gotten to the point that the arguments are becoming personal, and reflect a great deal of the same old-line intellectual snobbery as the Democrats are accused of employing in their fawning over liberal Ivy League grads.

Knowledge is elitist.

Intelligence <> wisdom.

It is funny how these conservatives are oblivious to the point that such a powerful and unaccountable branch of government is already reserved to the members of one profession. They seem to want it to restrict it further to a tiny elite within that profession while at the same time defending the right of democratically elected presidents to choose their candidates.

If Will et al. don't like Miers, fine, but all this talk about paper trails and judicial track records (what would they say about a conservative judge whose track record consists mainly of reversals by liberal courts of appeal?)is more befittiing of proponents of aristocratic government. I guess we are all judicial activists now.

John:

What's especially amusing is that they think a Court with 9 intellectual leaders in the field of law would be a good thing when what it would render is a Court that issues 9 opinions on each case.

Jim:

Amen. I admire anyone who annoys law professors.

Over on the Corner, useful idiot Rod Dreher is comparing Miers to a...dog. That is, an actual canine. I'm not making this up:

"I fully expect that if Justice Stevens retires, President Bush will nominate his dog Barney to fill that vacant seat. After all, who can a man trust to be loyal more than his dog? I reckon the president knows Barney's heart as well as anybody's, and certainly Barney has no paper trail, unless you count stuff he chewed up when he was a puppy."

As a supporter of Roe v Wade, I love this stuff. Miers is a pro-lifer who would probably vote to overturn Roe, which is not something I want to see.

Dreher badly wants Roe overturned, of course, so he cleverly trashes a nominee who would likely give him his wish. I don't like relying on the Drehers of the world, but I'll take all the help I can get to stop Miers.

Dreher says that the Will column will "turn things around" for conservatives on the nomination. All hail the great and powerful Wizard George Will!

Casey is a lefty but right on this issue. Dreher and his ilk are recklessly trashing what they want. As I have said, BDS is now afflicting "elite" conservative opinion.

Casey:

You just need to connect the dots--Dreher too is a disappointed McCainiac:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/12/story_1223_1.html

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/13/story_1386_1.html

I'm not a lefty or a righty. I'm a wishy-washy middle-of-the-roader.

I admit that I don't want to see Roe overturned. I'm pro-choice, and I also think a decision to overturn Roe would unleash all sorts of political mayhem and monstrosity. That's the idea behind stare decisis, and I can't think of a better application of the idea than Roe.

Of course, the Drehers of the world want nothing more than to overturn Roe. Dreher's an idiot for opposing a nominee who would help grant his wish, but nobody ever claimed Dreher's IQ is enormously impressive.

Anyway, a split on the right is undoubtedly the best way to stop Miers. I think she will get confirmed, but there's no reason to go down without a fight.

Over on the Corner, Jonah Goldberg - definitely not an idiot of the Dreher variety - is making a case that even if Miers would vote to overturn Roe, conservatives should still oppose her until she shows that she's smart enough. Jonah doesn't define what "smart enough" means, but he's quite ingenious in arguing that simply supporting Miers because she would vote conservative is somehow "corruption."

This is far more sophisticated than Dreher's brain-dead dog jokes, but Jonah is still doing good work to undermine Miers. Keep it up, Jonah!

Casey:

Goldberg was likewise a McCainiac.

So, when McCain goes to bat for her because she's an evangelical, will Dreher and Goldberg be "born again" supporters?

Bob:

It'll sure help him win South Carolina this time around.

Here's the best rejoinder I've found to Will, from Bench Memos:

Judging takes work, but the folks who think "constitutional reasoning" is a talent requiring divination, intense effort and years of monastic study are the same folks who will inevitably give you "Lemon tests," balancing formulas, "penumbras" and concurrences that make your head spin.