The Truth Laid Bear says "Take Your Stand on Miers"

N.Z. Bear wants to know where you stand: for or against Ms. Miers for SCOTUS Justice.

He notes:

The Miers nomination is reaching a critical point, with rumors of her withdrawl swirling and conservative fixtures such as Jonah Goldberg and George Will coming out in opposition.

Recognizing that the Supreme Court is deliberately designed as a non-representative part of our government, I'd still like to hear clearly from bloggers as to whether they give Miers a thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

So let's make this simple: if you want to have your position noted, post your argument and include one of the following exact phrases (quotes and formatting are not required):

He then lists the key phrases you'll need to get your post recorded by the TTLB. He launched the tracking page here.

I've made my position clear here. The short straight-up: I oppose the Miers nomination. Here's a summary of why:

The Culture of Death subsists on institutional support. The horrendous legal reasoning that gave birth to Roe v. Wade continues to provide rulings that shore up this support. If the Supreme Court is to do an about-face from this regrettable Judiciarium-esque behavior, it will require justices that do more than just believe abortion is wrong. It requires brilliant legal minds that can clearly and persuasively argue why Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. It requires Justices that demonstrate a convincing judicial philosophy that is rooted in strict constructionist interpretation of the US Constitution. It requires principled men and women that possess a well-conceived and insightful legal philosophy--before the nomination process!

Many potential candidates for the Supreme Court fit that bill. Harriet Miers did not. Her experience may provide a helpful perspective on how the interpretations of the Court play out in real people's lives. While surely a beneficial and even necessary perspective to bring to the Court, it's not a sufficient one. She will need to convince eight other brilliant legal scholars that her interpretations are appropriate ones for the Court to take. Does she possess the qualifications that will enable her to do this? Not by any reliable indicator made public so far.

Her nomination may indicate the beginning of the end of Judiciarium. More likely, however, is that it continues, as its insidious culture infects Ms. Miers, transforming her into, at best, another O'Connor. I hope I'm wrong. I pray I'm wrong. Perhaps someone on the "chillin'" side of the aisle can explain to me why I'm wrong. Right now, I'm not seeing it.

I've seen nothing since I published that post that has changed my mind. Ms. Miers represents a stealth candidate that will enact judicial activism beneficial to a culture of life, at best. At worst, she becomes seduced by the Dark Side of the Court and takes her place beside David Souter and Anthony Kennedy as another liberal Judiciarium enthusiast nominated by a Republican president. Her tenure on the Court will not serve the nation in either case.

The Administration's clumsy attempts to simultaneously silence her critics and cover her mistakes have turned her pre-hearing nomination process into Ringling Brothers on the Beltway. How many more embarrassing lapses of competence must the base of the Republicans endure before they finally see the Republican party that they voted for in November, '04?

I remain illin'.