The Defense of the Anti-Miers Zealots

Jonathan Adler defends the worse-than-filibustering of Harriet Miers from the criticisms of Hugh Hewitt.

His defense if more than a little disingenuous, as when he argues that the arguments against her were fair and substantive. How could that be, when she wasn't give a chance to testify? They used 10 year old publications and speeches to portray her as a liberal.

Then he writes:

Second, Miers' withdrawal does not contravene the call for giving nominees up-or-down votes. No one was going to deny her a vote. There was never any threat of a filibuster or tying her up in committee.

No, they only demanded that her nomination be withdrawn, and raised money to run ads against her. They poisoned the whole atmosphere in the Senate and got GOP senators demanding copies of her work product from her time in the White House. How can he say they weren't trying to deny her a vote?

Many on the Right have long argued that a nominee's demonstrated legal accomplishments are paramount, that religion is irrelevant, that a nominee's political views (on abortion on anything else) do not dictate their legal views, that what matters is the nominee's "head" not his or her "heart," and so on.

This is more of K-Lo's claim that it's Bush's fault because he "put [his] own allies in the most untenable position possible based upon exceptionally bad decisionmaking." How can she still claim to be his ally after fomenting a mutiny?