He should not become the new high bar.

It could well be that she is in the tradition of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia, as the president has promised. The problem is that those of us who were looking for some tangible evidence of that have none, and we can't come out of the box supporting her.

I think we are going to see the kind of nominee we should have gotten in the first place: someone with a strong track record of conservative judicial philosophy. I'd be shocked if it's not.

[But yesterday's response to the nominee left that open to doubt. There was widespread dissent among Bush's usual allies on the right, who questioned whether the 60-year-old former corporate lawyer possessed the distinguished qualifications and conservative credentials they are looking for in a court nominee.] It could well be that she is in the tradition of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia, as the president has promised, ... The problem is that those of us who were looking for some tangible evidence of that have none, and we can't come out of the box supporting her.

the benefit of the doubt because, thus far, President Bush has selected nominees to the federal courts who are committed to the written Constitution.

I am not ready to bring out the pom-poms and start the cheering. I was hoping I could. I think a lot of great résumés were set aside here, and I am not sure for the right reason.