Over the past week, I have received a lot of mail on my posts concerning the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court. Some of them have used language I find regrettable from people who claim to be open-minded and rational, but others have asked legitimate questions and voiced reasonable concerns. A great many have asked if I could manage to answer in less than a thousand words, so here goes.
 No, it's not just accepting "trust me" from President Bush, to say we should consider his nomination of Miers in the light of his past picks. We do the same thing when we consider our legal and medical advice, or when we consider the input from a co-worker. Bush has a good solid record, and it just makes sense to count it now.
 EVERY source is biased; the only question is how to measure the extent of it and see whether it's overboard. The simple fact is, if we look long enough we can find flaws in any candidate, and it should be noted that while it is entirely reasonable to ask how Harriet Miers is qualified, it is unconscionable to spread rumors or assume she is unqualified, simply because she is not what you expected.
 Republicans overwhelming supported President Clinton's right to present his own nominees. No reasonable person can now claim Bush deserves less.
 For many years, Republicans fought to make sure candidates were qualified, not to measure them on the basis of idealogy. We will put a dagger into Liberal hands if we abandon that sound practice now.
 There will be hearings for Miers. The very purpose of these hearings is for the Senate to decide where they will stand on her. Premature verdicts are foolish verdicts.
Choose wisely. This is about far more than one pick at one time.