I haven't spoken out on President Bush's judicial nominations, at least not since John Roberts was nominated, though I was disappointed in the NARAL ad smear against him. I was glad that he stood his ground against the liberal interest groups which demanded that he disclose how he would rule on key issues (read abortion), and insisted that he respect the precedent Roe vs. Wade. My belief is that the precedent of Roe vs. Wade is worthy of as much respect as the precedent of Dredd Scott vs. Sanford, and liberals should be accountable to that outcome of their thinking, that they have no respect for precedent when it goes against their ideals. Indeed, there have been many SCOTUS decisions which have overturned precedent they've cheered over the years.
I'm impressed with Chief Justice Roberts mainly for his view of the judge as an umpire, judging the game by a fixed set of rules, and not a partisan player who wishes the rules to be rewritten in their favor as the game is played. I don't have a firm opinion on the Miers nomination yet, except to say that I'm disappointed that President Bush did not nominate a younger nominee. I was actually hoping for a Miguel Estrada nomination. After the way he was treated in his appellate court nomination, I think he deserved vindication.
Manuel Miranda, a former assistant to Senator Frist, has written an excellent series of columns in OpinionJournal, of which this is his last (To see previous columns, look for his columns appearing MWF starting about the time of the Roberts nomination).
Errors and Corrections:
Dredd Scott vs. Sanford was originally entered as Dredd vs. Scott. It's corrected above.