AJOB has a strongly worded cut-to-the-chase editorial that puts the Miers nomination in the perspective of pending bioethics cases before the Supreme Court as it is currently composed. Noting that many such cases are in the pipeline, and will continue to arise over contentious issus into the future, they point out that the Court is evenly divided on the Oregon right-to-die case it is currently considering, and conclude that it’s almost unthinkable a Miers confirmation would not tilt that case and every other like it to the right. I think they’re correct on this:

As conservatives continue to pretend to object to Miers’ nomination on the grounds that she might not be conservative enough (if you believe that, I have bridges to sell), this the most political appointment in the history of the Supreme Court is about to go to the Senate where, if confirmed, Miers would no doubt tilt such rulings toward the conservative. And that, friends, ends the question of where the nation’s jurisprudence on bioethics issues like stem cells, abortion and euthanasia will go. Is there really any question that the confirmation of Miers would mean a quick and sharp shift in Court positions on abortion, euthanasia and stem cells, among a dozen other bioethics issues that will come before the Court in the coming decade?

No.

Yet the “GOP is not satisfied” charade continues, suppressing what should be a deafening echo of protest against this nomination by commentators from the left.

Note: I wish bioethics.net would begin signing their editorials. Glenn McGee is the chief editor, and presumably the source of most of these blog posts, but others also contribute. Names would be helpful.