SCOTUS Cynicism

The grumblings (and rumblings) about the Harriet Miers nomination has me thinking something that I haven't heard from the right, the center, or what qualifies as the left in the US political discussion. This may be cynical, but then again, this is an administration that really asks us to be as cynical as possible; where we have been fooled hasn't been in those cases where we were too skeptical, but rather where we were too trusting.

So here's a guess:

The Miers nomination, all along, was put forth as a trial balloon/Potemkin candidacy (choose your own metaphor), knowing that for a number of obvious reasons, she wouldn't actually be confirmed (either she would withdraw her nomination, the Prez would withdraw the nomination, or the Right would indicate officially or unofficially that she was unacceptable). Bush then gets to nominate who ever he wants to (and he has a long list of candidates, of course, e.g. Michael Luttig and Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen and all the usual suspects). This will be a candidate the hard-right adores (and whose vote against Roe is virtually assured); the left (I know, it is hard to use this term with a straight face) then has to respond to the following points:

Candidate x has appeals court experience (so that can't be used as a disqualification, as it might be with Miers).
Candidate x has excellent academic credentials (so that can't be used as a disqualification, as it might be with Miers).
Candidate x is highly-regarded by his or her peers (so that can't be used as a disqualification, as it might be with Miers).
Candidate x is not a Bush "crony" (so that can't be used as a disqualification, as it might be with Miers).
Candidate x didn't do something foolish like fail to fill out appropriate paperwork, or do it incorrectly, or have shady land dealings (so that can't be used as a disqualification, as it might be with Miers).

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12973371.htm

The presumption will be invoked, as usual (except when the Right doesn't like the particular candidate), that Senators should allow the President to choose the nominees he wishes.

So the Democratic leadership will be faced, under this scenario, with having to argue that the candidate is unacceptable, and so unacceptable that a filibuster might be required. The Republicans will have put the Democrats in a position where the latter will have to develop strong, persuasive, well-reasoned arguments, based on a clear understanding of the function of the judiciary, the Constitution, and on principle.

This is called "backing the Democrats into a corner." As I said, this is cynical, but on whose side do you want to be: Republicans fighting for what they want, or Democrats fighting on the basis of their "principles"?