Flat out - this is an awful choice by the President. Once again we have a nominee we know nothing about. However, unlike Roberts, it is unlikely that we will ever know anything about Harriet Miers. She has no long paper trail from prior work in government. She has no opinions from a stint on the bench. She simply has lots of advice given to the President, and as his personal lawyer, that will certainly be privileged.
And there is much anecdotal evidence out there to be discouraged about. Stephen Bainbridge has a good summary. A couple of interesting points - Miers was troubled by the number of Federalist Society members working in the White House Counsel's office because Federalist Society-types loathe the ABA - which she loves; she doesn't have, and has never needed to develop, a coherent judicial philosophy - which makes her dangerous as she will be able to "grow" on the Court (which usually means veering left ala Souter, Blackmun, and Kennedy); Sen. Cornyn himself has said "She obviously is no Scalia or Thomas."
We are yet again told to "trust the President." Well, I don't any more. He has given us boatloads of new spending, larger government, and has done nothing to reign in any of the runaways in Congress. His token conservative policy has been tax cuts. And, in the end, I really don't know if the President truly has a commitment to conservative judicial principles that would merit my trust in him.
Michelle Malkin has a few posts on this (here and here). RedState has also been all over this (just go here).
I am genuinely hoping that some of the hints from Republican Senators that they are not enthused will be brought to fruition. Trent Lott and Sam Brownback have expressed reservations, if not disapproval of the choice. Republicans need to look at this with skepticism and understand what this has the potential to do to the conservative base. This is especially true of some Republicans who may face tough re-election battles next year (Santorum, Burns, Talent). The base needs to feel that it is being heeded or they won't show up at the polls 13 months from now. And that could mean that 2007 will see a Senate with fewer Republicans, and will lead to the loss of any chance of holding a majority on a conservative position (as defections from the likes of Snowe, Collins, Chafee and Specter could knock us below 50).
What would be sweet justice would be for the ABA to issue Miers a "not qualified" rating, since she fought hard when the Administration made the decision to abandon the ABA vetting procedure for potential nominees. That would also provide cover by which Republicans in the Senate could grow spines and defeat this nomination andd demand that the President pick from the scores of qualified conservative academics and jurists who have proven their qualification, merit, and suitability.
Shame on you Mr. President for giving your supporters the middle finger with this nomination. Now was not the time to make a nomination because you can - we know you have the power and authority to nominate anybody you wish. What you fail to realize is just because you can doesn't mean you should. This nomination blows off your base, and sets back the movement to bring conservative principles back to the judiciary. How many men and women like Michael Luttig and Edith Jones will you find now? If a Republican President with 55 Republican Senators does not have the will to elevate a long-serving, eminent jurist who issues openly conservative opinions, when will those judges have a chance for promotion? The answer - never. And so, you will see more judges making fewer and fewer conservative rulings, choosing to protect their hopes of advancement by keeping their paper trail "clean" rather than doing what is right by the country.
Shame on you Mr. President.
