Debunking the Dobson Defense

In a long post today, Hugh Hewitt continued his defense of the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court. I was especially struck by one of his arguments:

But I want to note one troubling aspect of the intra-conservative debate this past week. Among Miers' defenders are James Dobson, Chuck Colosn, and Rick Warren. Almost no credit or respect is given the judgment of these men by the conservative elites hammering away at Miers.

I'm conservative, (although by no means part of the elite) and more specifically a right-wing religious kind of conservative. I have immense respect for Dobson, Colson and Warren as men and leaders. But their support of Harriet Miers is unconvincing because of one simple reason--it is based on trust rather than knowledge. These are not men who know Harriet Miers; these are men who have been told that she is worthy of their support. On Brit Hume's show the day of the nomination, Dr. Dobson said he was "way out on a limb" in supporting Miers. He is trusting what he has been told.

I trust him, but I don't trust those who are pushing Miers to him, for the same reason that I don't trust Bush's nomination of Miers. In reality, Dobson and the others are just expressing confidence in someone other than Miers when they "defend her." That's why "the judgment of these men" is not a convincing argument to make me reconsider my opposition to what remains in my view a horrible missed opportunity.