The press releases are out.
On the left, the National Organization for Women can only guess what it doesn’t know:
Miers’ potential as a justice is unknown at this point…. It remains to be seen where Miers stands on those and virtually every other issue. She has no paper trail and has never served as a judge – quite simply, her future conduct on the Court may be impossible to determine. Should the Senate confirm someone to a lifetime appointment with so little information? We think not. NOW urges the Senate to ask tough questions, insist on answers, and refuse to confirm this nomination unless they can establish that Miers supports the fundamental rights of women.
Tough questions? Not exactly scathing. And from the right, the Family Research Council is holding fire after waiting most of the day to issue a release:
…However, our lack of knowledge about Harriet Miers, and the absence of a record on the bench, give us insufficient information from which to assess whether or not she is indeed in that [Scalia and Thomas] mold.
In the days to come, Harriet Miers will have the chance to demonstrate such a philosophy. We will be watching closely as the confirmation process begins, and we urge American families to wait and see if the confidence we have always placed in the President’s commitment is justified by this selection.
In other words, it may not be as bad as you think. James Taranto has a similar take: “Glenn Reynolds declares himself ‘underwhelmed,’ and that pretty well captures our feeling too. We hope we’re proved wrong — but we hate it when we have to say that.”
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.