[Supreme Court]

On Consenting.

On last night's Newshour, Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer discussed the bizarre waltz to which judicial nominees and Senators dance at nomination time. Judicial nominees claim they've never considered particular issues--abortion key among them. Senators know they're lying, and use every technique at their disposal--private interviews, public questioning, deep research--to ascertain whether or not the nominee has ever made a definitive statement. If, through this process, the nominee makes the fatal error of honest disclosure, half the Senators then contemplate filibuster. Yesterday we learned that Harriet Miers had indeed made such a definitive statement.

But Graham made the key point. So what if you have a personal opinion on abortion. That's not really the issue:

There's the politics of abortion; then there's the job of the judge. The question is, would she overturn Roe v. Wade based on a personal agenda, or would she look at the facts, understand as a standing precedent of the court, and have an analytical view of whether it should stand or fall?

I oppose capital punishment--quite strongly, in fact. But does that mean I don't consider it a matter of settled law? Absurd. Miers is staunchly anti-abortion. So what? She appears to be incompetent, and that's really the issue.