A modest proposal: Blawggers should help Senators on Miers questioning

As a somewhat regular reader of Glenn Reynolds a.k.a. Instapundit, Volokh Conspiracy, Professor Bainbridge and Hugh Hewitt, I've been alternately amused and appalled at the sackcloths and ashes over the Miers nomination.

Hugh Hewitt has been gamely trying to find supporters of Miers among his legal blogging buddies and fending off the critics.

As a non-lawyer but political news junkie, I confess I was surprised at the pick. However, I wasn't out on the ledge like many critics of the pick. I remain open to persuasion either way. Maybe it is my generally sunny disposition that leads me to give people a chance. I don't know.

However, if the Blawggers want to provide an invaluable service to the Country and to the Conservative movement they feel is threatened by this nomination then it is time for them to step up to the plate and call their favorite Senator on the judiciary committee and offer their services in providing appropriate Constitutional Law questions for them to use in the hearings.

Call it an oral exam of sorts for Ms. Miers.

If she fields the questions well, then it is time to quit the carping and give her her props.

And if she fumbles the ball, then they have the right to say, I TOLD YOU SO.

So how about it big-time Blawggers?

How about it Hugh Hewitt?

Do you think you will be able to use your influence on the critics of this nomination?

You got the ball rolling on the Roberts document dump. Time to harness the sub-section of the blogosphere on this project?

If the idea has been suggested already, good! Add my voice as one saying it is a good idea.

If it is happening, I'd like to know what the questions are!

UPDATE:

Obviously, this post was written in exasperation of the critics of Miers.

At least some critics have the courage of their convictions to call on the President to withdraw the nomination or for Miers to request to be removed from consideration.

The critics who irk me are the ones who criticize her on one hand and then on the other hand won't call for her to stand down and instead just say I'm unhappy, hurumph!

I wonder what the critics will say during the hearings?

If she gives thoughtful answers, will the critics pipe down?

Or will they continue to say her resume on Constitutional matters is too thin?

Critics (on both sides) often say that the Senators often just make speeches in these hearings (true!) and that their staffs don't feed them good questions to ask (often true). I would want to know what kinds of questions these critics want her to answer. If they really believe she is not fit for the job then they owe it to the Country and the Conservative movement to come up with the questions that will reveal her to be the lightweight they think she is!

Or do they feel the hearings are irrelevant and all that counts is the resume?

If she botches her responses in the hearings, I'd be ready to call on her to withdraw or for the Senate to vote her down from this blog.

Will the critics call for her confirmation if she comes across well?