Reid and Miers
As it now stands, Democrats could probably support her unanimously and she'd still never get past a Republican filibuster. I happen to think she won't get unanimous support (that is, I don't think she'll get votes from every Democrat, it's possible that she will pass the Senate without any "no" votes but with abstentions). Even so, the dynamic is odd. I feel like I ought to like anyone that the conservative hivemind dislikes this intensely, but I simply don't. I don't care that she gave money to failed Democratic campaigns a million years ago; propping up a loser can be a great way to weaken the eventual winner.
Here are the criteria I have for tepidly supporting a nominee (i.e., not actively working against).
- philosophical consistency
- philosophical coherence
Without seeing how she serves when her client is the law itself, philosophy and temperament are impossible to assess. Hearings won't bring that out, because there's no disincentive to lie. If there were, Clarence Thomas would have a perjury conviction (scroll down to the paragraph beginning "During his hearings…"), and Chief Justice Roberts might be sweating in his new robes.
How can we determine the adequacy, let alone excellence, of someone's judicial philosophy unless they've served on the bench, or at least developed a record of legal scholarship?