Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Miers Revisited

After a day of reflection, my thoughts from yesterday on the SCOTUS nomination still remain much the same. However, I would say that I've begun to lean slightly further to being alright with the president's pick. While I still maintain that I think there are better picks the president could have gone with, such as Luttig or McConnell, Harriet Miers' nomination is what we have been given, and so we must now attempt to deal with it properly.

As I said yesterday, Republicans can be upset with the choice, but for now they should register their frustrations, pack them away for a later day, and look towards getting Miers seated.

The more I think about Miers' nomination, the more I see her potential to be a dark horse for the strict constructionists and hardcore conservatives. She has worked closely with President Bush for five years in the White House, and recently was directly involved in seeking out judicial nominees for him. If the president asked her to be his nominee, I'm sure she must possess the views that he wanted in a SCOTUS judge. So perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to allow our lack of knowledge about her to cause us to condemn her nomination by the president.

Erick at RedState has good perspective in thinking about this side of the issue:
I start from the premise that Miers is exactly as Bush says she is --- a prolife conservative who will interpret the law faithfully to the original meaning of the constitution and not legislate. We know that Democrats, including Harry Reid, recommended Miers for the position.

So, Bush went with their recommendation. Now we are in this position: If the Democrats accept Miers they will most likely have put a female Scalia on the bench. If the Democrats now reject Miers, the President can make the case that he (A) consulted the Democrats; (B) took one of their own recommendations; (C) saw them reject she who they recommended; (D) so now he feels free to go with someone like Alito or Luttig or Batchelder or Corrigan.

Bush has been thrown into a political briar patch and, while I disagree with the nomination based on her stated qualifications, it just might be that this is the play of the year. One way or the other, it is one hell of a political gamble.

Indeed.


On another note, have you forgotten about Chuck Schumer? Chances are that you did, or perhaps didn't even know to begin with, but even if you haven't forgotten about Schumer's dirty trick, you definitely haven't heard any serious reporting on it. For example, the New York times still hasn't published a word about the issue, and there has been essentially no MSM coverage of it since the day it broke.

However, good center-right bloggers like Michelle Malkin have kept their ear to the ground. She has the latest, including information saying that the DSCC is picking up the laywer bills for the two employees who engaged in fraudlent activity on behalf of Schumer. Don't lose track of this story, it's going to be important in the months to come.