The American Spectator

I disagree with George Neumayr’s unfavorable comparison of Harriet Miers to Antonin Scalia.

There are times when Scalia has been dazzling, but has his jurisprudence really been a fount of clarity to which ordinary Americans can look for understanding the Court and the Constitution? I’m sorry, I don’t think so. I think it has been, more often, eccentric and obscure, even as it might be headed in the right direction.

How does Miers compare in that regard? Let’s see how she does at her confirmation hearings.

p>My expectations for her are high, not low. I expect that she will please conservatives, including the estimable George Neumayr. br> — Martin McPhillips /p>

I oppose Harriet Miers because I wanted a female Antonin Scalia but instead I got a female Michael Brown.

Honestly, I do not care if it could be guaranteed that every Miers vote over the next 20 years will be to the right of Clarence Thomas. A Supreme Court nomination is more than just the vote — it should be about moving the conservative ball down the field. We should use this particular nomination to conduct a national debate about whether conservatism or liberalism is best for this country.

The nomination of John Roberts did not bring about this debate. Nor has anything our side has done since the 1994 election. The Contract With America was the last such debate but we never followed up on that victory to seal the deal with the American population. Now the country thinks conservatism means invading Iraq, adding another mandate to Medicare and wasting money on pork.

p>With Harriet Miers we will not get this debate. Instead, her nomination hearing will obsess on her being a born again Christian and on the definition of crony. I say pull her nomination and do it right. br> — Michael Richards br> Glastonbury, Connecticut /p>