With Republicans in control of the House, Senate, White House and the majority of govenorships Bush continues to make unnecessary concessions to Democrats. Is the man that ousted the Taliban and freed a nation so afraid of confrontation that he won’t nominate a known conservative to the most important judicial post in the land?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m tickled pink that Bush didn’t nominate gun-grabbin’ Gonzalez, but to pass over great picks like Priscilla Owen and (my fav) Janice Rogers Brown? And talking about gun-grabbers, does anyone know anything about Miers’ stance on the Second Amendment? The War on Guns notes that Miers speaks supportively of Project Safe Neighborhoods. That’s a strike against her right there.
I thought I voted for a conservative — twice. President Bush has demonstrated that he is on the liberal end of that label — twice.
Let’s see how the ‘sphere is reacting:
- Will Bunch Blog details Miers’ involvement with past Bush potential scandals: his National Guard Service and some Texas Lottery Commission shenanigans:
This all could be interesting fodder for a Miers confirmation hearing this fall. But Bush apparently went for Miers’ top two credentials:
Loyalty…and a little inside information.
[HT to Just a Bump in the Beltway]
- Instapundit is “underwhelmed” and QandO Blog agrees:
So far as I can tell, Miers’ qualifications include a tolerable resume and a fierce loyalty to President Bush. And in an administration predicated on loyalty and cronyism, that’s all it takes.
- The Volokh Conspiracy has mixed feelings:
But my initial reaction is that it’s unfortunate (but not surprising) that for both Supreme Court nominations, the president has chosen well-connected insiders with ties to the executive branch, rather than individuals who are more likely to bring a more “independent” perspective to issues of government and especially presidential power. And appointing his “personal lawyer” from Texas seems very Lyndon Johnsonish, and is hardly likely to repel recent charges of Bush Administration cronyism. On the other hand, I’m please that Miers is (a) not from an elite law school; (b) not a federal judge; and (c) spent the vast majority of her career outside the beltway. All good things to bring new perspectives to the Court, and, in the case of (b), break a silly tradition [that Justices MUST be from the federal bench] that has evolved.
- Ankle Biting Pundits gets it exactly right:
Here’s another question – when Miers comes under the inevitable attack by the left, why should conservatives go to the mat for her? What has she ever done to convince us she’d be in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas? Is Harriet Miers why the base was out knocking on doors and making phone calls? I don’t think so. To use a phrase, conservatives really have no “skin” in this game, and quite frankly many likely wouldn’t be disappointed if she’s rejected, which will at least give the President a chance to nominate someone that could fire up conservatives.
- Ditto from Betsy’s Page:
The reports are that senators on both sides of the aisle. Well, if that is the criteria on which she was chosen, that is very disappointing. That is not a position of leadership, but of bowing to pressure.
- Confirm Them isn’t thrilled and posts Meirs’ political contributions which go to both sides of the fence (let’s hope she does better with her decisions).
- Outside the Beltway:
While President Bush is not playing from a position of commanding strength, to say the least, at the moment, virtual surrender to the Democrats on something this important is hardly necessary.
- PoliPundit is “not thrilled“.
- Captain’s Quarters is mystified:
Miers may make a great stealth candidate, but right now she looks more like a political ploy. Color me disappointed in the first blush.
- Angry Clam posting at Patterico’s Pontifications pulls no punches:
You know, just when I thought that the worst possible move that the Bush Administration could make would be to nominate Alberto Gonzales, he goes and shows me up.
- Right Wing News says this is the “worst decision of Bush’s entire presidency”:
To merely describe Miers as a terrible pick is to underestimate her sheer awfulness as a selection. …
You want a candidate who has “Souter” written all over her? You want a candidate who can’t be trusted to overturn Roe v. Wade? Well, her name is Harriet Miers.
- Power Line is disappointed:
Regardless of what the Democrats do, many Republicans will have misgivings about this nomination. “Stealth” nominees have not turned out well for Republicans.
PAUL concurs: This nominee is a two-fer — she would not have been selected but for her gender, and she would not have been selected but for her status as a Bush crony. So instead of a 50-year old conservative experienced jurist we get a 60-year old with no judicial experience who may or may not be conservative.
- Confederate Yankee is unimpressed.
- Mary Katherine Ham:
Bill Kristol was just on Fox, saying, “it’s hard to see this as anything but a flinch from a fight.”
He added that it sends a very bad signal for Bush to pass over distinguished conservative women with strong records who have been fighting for constitutionalism for years for someone with no record. I agree.
[HT to Club for Growth Blog]
- Right Side of the Rainbow is taking a “wait and see” approach, but:
What is it professionally that qualifies Harriet Miers for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court? Is this A) an affirmative action hire, or B) another instance of Bush Administration cronyism or C) both A & B?
- Balloon Juice says the pick doesn’t make sense.
- Michelle Malkin is “utterly underwhelmed” and has a blogosphere roundup.
Last Friday, Right Wing News polled 14 bloggers about the upcoming nomination. It is interesting that five of them specifically mentioned Miers as the choice “you really hope Bush doesn’t pick”. So 1 out of 3 bloggers specifically rejected Miers before she was even nominated!
Blue State Conservative is “having a hard time finding a blogger happy with Bush choice.” Ditto!
Time to write my Senator, for all the good it will do. Although I have hope, encouraged by a post from SCOTUSblog:
I have no view on whether she should be confirmed (it’s simply too early to say), but will go out on a limb and predict that she will be rejected by the Senate. In my view, Justice O’Connor will still be sitting on the Court on January 1, 2006.