Caution Prevails As Bush Picks Miers For SCOTUS

Click on the title for a quote rundown at NPR, about President Bush's pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

Listen.

The sound you may be hearing is the sound of scurrying to find information on Harriet Miers. Until today, she was well under the radar and quite far from being a household name. But now that she is the nominee for the high court of the land, her name, her image, and her past words (and deeds) will soon be in the limelight and under the microscope.

If you see all of your throw rugs out of place in your house in the next couple of weeks, you will know that the left has been looking for dirt on Ms. Miers. Without extensive experience in a high profile position, that may be a difficult task to accomplish. Just as the left had to grasp at straws at the Roberts nomination, look for the same frustration after an extensive dirt digging campaign that may very well turn up, very little.

Now, we all have expected this from the left. They have spent the days after the Roberts confirmation threatening more stringent scrutiny on the next nomination, and now, this is their chance to deliver the goods. And they most certainly will not disappoint.

But what about the right?

Many (like Bill Kristol) are disappointed, demoralized, and depressed. They wanted Bush to thumb his nose at the left and appoint a hardcore conservative that was bound to guarantee, renewed threats of filibusters and nuclear options. Both sides are posturing for the flurry of information that is about to dominate the news, about this lady. Both sides are poised and ready to use all methods and tactics, both fair and unfair, to cast a shadow of doubt on her.

It's sad, but true.

So, just who is this woman that has both extremes worried? Here is a biography.

But beyond that, there will be a whole host of new allegations, accusations, and no doubt misinformations surfacing in the MSM, real soon. Some of it may be accurate, but some may not. But, we the people, will once again be forced to sort through it all and make some sense of it, based on what information is fed to us.

We know that she has never been a judge. That fact alone, has raised a few eyebrows in the first few hours after the announcement. Does it matter? Not necessarily, but it is unusual in that she will be on the highest court in the nation without having benefit of being on a bench, at some point in her career. What ultimately matters is, does she know the law? I would say that the President wouldn't have her as White House Counsel, if she didn't. After all, the job of WHC is to cover the adminstration with competent and sound legal advice.

We know that she was once a Democrat and even contributed to Al Gore's first failed presidential campaign, in 1988. I won't hold that against her. I was once young and idealistic, and I even voted for Carter in my first Presidential election (and boy, was I ever sorry for that after serving in the Army, during his administration). But, to the left, it won't matter that she supported Wooden Al. They will view her as a turncoat for leaving the party, even though it was the party that left her. To the right, she won't be trusted because she was once, "one of them".

But through all of this, one thing is evident in the two choices the President has made. He is picking nominees that have not had lengthy careers, as jurists. This is a good thing, in that, they are not so firmly entrenched in a mindset of judicial arrogance that often leads to an increased or overinflated sense of self-importance; and that in turn leads them to believe that they can legislate from the bench.

Time will tell. I will reserve my judgements until I learn more about her. And believe me there will be more info coming soon, both true and untrue. So, stay tuned. PYY will be following this story as it develops.