Miers Nomination Revisited

In case you missed it, I recently posted a piece on the Harriet Miers nomination, the day it was announced.

One commenter named Gene, had some interesting points

When you write, "...does she know the law? I would say that the President wouldn't have her as White House Counsel, if she didn't", I think you given the precise reason why Miers won't be confirmed. There are quite a few Republican senators who want to run for President, and they don't want to be reminded come election time that, pace Michael Brown, they approved the President putting one of his sycophants on the Supreme Court.

Because the only reason Harriet Miers was chosen is that the President knows her. Not that she's one of the brilliant legal minds in the country, nor that she's had a stellar career. Bush said she's the best candidate for the job, which is patently ludicrous. Bush says, "Trust me". After Katrina, not even the rabble at the National Review Online can justify that as reasonable.

It isn't the left scurring to get info on Miers--it's the right, especially the far right. They need info to show their supporters that this woman--who gave money to Al Gore, and who answered a questionaire saying that she supported gay marriage--is one of them. But they can't flat out ask her "will you overturn Roe v. Wade?" because, remember, no litmus tests allowed.

Bush was no help--he got up in front of the press and channelled Bill Clinton so spookily I half-expected him to bite his lower lip as he said, "I have no recollection" when asked if he and Miers had ever discussed abortion. That's either a bald-faced lie or an act of incredible stupidity, and, unfortunately, you can never tell which with this Administration.

Miers may well be a capable attorney. But no one thinks she got the nomination because she's brilliant. She got the nod because she's a slavish Bush loyalist, to the point where she was once quoted as saying the President is the most brilliant man she's ever met. That alone should disqualify her from the bench. But she simply doesn't have the qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. Her lack of judicial experience could be offset if she had proven herself a brilliant litigator or scholar. She hasn't. She's had a nice career, but much of it has been spent at the beck and call of the President. It seems incredibly naive to think that she would be an independent voice if elevated to the Supreme Court, which is another big reason to give her the thumbs down.

There's no need for anyone to dig up dirt on Miers. Her extremely close ties to the Bush Administration muddies her so much that she is nearly unconfirmable. I think the Democrats would be wise to sit back and let the Republicans kill her nomination themselves.

I don't think it's a secret that Gene isn't very fond of Bush. But he makes some interesting points, nonetheless.

I do not believe she is necessarily a sychophant and I do not believe she is necessarily unqualified just because she has no judicial experience. That said, I think it would be best to wait and see how she does before the committee. Because what I do believe is, the most important question that should be on the committee members' minds is, "Will she interpret the law according to the Constitution?".

But what I am sure of, is simple. I am not sure what kind of justice she will make, unless I can hear what she has to say when she answers some pointed questions from the Senators.

Some other points I would make were included in my reply to Gene's comments. Here is an excerpt from that reply:

I am wondering if this is the sacrificial lamb nomination. Put up someone that you know will not be confirmed, in the hopes that you can play on public opinion and do some arm twisting, later. The pressure will then be on the Senate to confirm the next nominee with less scrutiny.

Politics is full of strategy, much like when you play poker. You can't always control the hand you are dealt, but you can play the hand, given to you with a certain strategy. And although I am no poker expert, I know one strategy is "the bluff".

And that is essentially where I am at now, with this whole affair.

Who knows precisely what the President's camp is thinking? But I am thinking, let's wait and see how this plays out. The most inportant thing to me, is that she is a strict constructionist and will decide cases based on the rule of law. And will do it, in an effective and competent manner, not legislating from the bench.

But Gene may very well be right in his assessment, the right may deliver the fatal blow, that sinks this nomination.