Your humble Smallholder supported the confirmation of Roberts. While I am opposed to some of the rulings that conservatives hope for from Roberts, the chief justice was qualified. Presidents gets to appoint and the Senate gets to confirm; the Democrats were being silly for opposing Roberts. The people have spoken at the polls and given both the White House and the Senate over to Republican control. So Republicans get to pick the judges. This is not to let Republicans, who blocked many more of Clinton’s appointments than the Dems have of Bush’s., off the hypocricy hook, but in the Roberts case the government worked the way the framers designed it to.

The Senate has the right to ask questions about a nominee’s viewpoints and it is a shame that partisanship has removed all meat from confirmation hearings. But the Senate ought not to have a litmus test on any single position. Having a variety of Constitutional constructions on the court is a good idea. Even if Roberts refused to address any substantive positions, his viewpoint was apparent from his “paper trail.”

Justice Meirs is a horse of another color. The best piece I have seen on her nomination is vie the Volokh Conspiracy. Randy Barnett points out that one of the major functions of the Senate’s confirmation check of Presidential appointment power was (and is) the prevention of cronyism. Regardless of what kind of justice Meirs turns out to be (if confirmed), her record does NOT speak for itself. If she follows recent tradition and does not answer questions about her Constitutional analysis, the Senate will be asked to confirm her on pure speculation.

This is bad policy. We ought to have nominees with established judicial or intellectual credentials.

Reject Meirs. Whether you are a conservative, moderate or liberal. It’s not the judge. It’s the cronyism.
—–
EXTENDED BOY: