The SCOTUS Nominee Debacle Everyone's Talking About

It's not news, by now. Considering I hear it at 8AM EST, only those under a serious rock haven't heard. Yahoo! News reports that President Bush has nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers.

The details:

President Bush named White House counsel Harriet Miers to a Supreme Court in transition Monday, turning to a longtime loyalist without experience as a judge or publicly known views on abortion to succeed Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor.

Miers "will strictly interpret our Constitution and laws. She will not legislate from the bench," the president said as the 60-year-old former private attorney and keeper of campaign secrets stood nearby in the Oval Office.

Miers' was Bush's second selection in three months for vacancies on a high court long divided on key issues. The announcement came shortly before the president attended a ceremony marking John Roberts' new tenure as the nation's 17th chief justice.

"The wisdom of those who drafted our Constitution and conceived our nation as functioning with three strong and independent branches has proven truly remarkable," Miers said at the White House before departing for the Capitol and a confirmation campaign already taking shape in the Senate.

In conference calls and interviews, the White House worked aggressively during the day to tamp down concern among conservatives determined — as Bush has pledged — to turn the court in a new direction.

Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said through his spokesman he wanted a confirmation vote by Thanksgiving, a compressed, seven-week timetable by recent historical standards. Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, pledged thoroughness.

"There needs to be, obviously, a very thorough inquiry into her background as a lawyer and her activities, people who will know her on the issues of character and integrity, which we will find out," he said.

Despite criticism, initial reaction suggested Bush had managed to satisfy many of the conservatives who helped confirm Roberts — without inflaming Democrats who repeatedly warned against the selection of an extreme conservative to succeed O'Connor, who has voted to uphold abortion rights and preserve affirmative action.

Really? I'll bet certain bloggers would beg to differ.

Such as Michelle Malkin:

What Julie Myers is to the Department of Homeland Security, Harriet Miers is to the Supreme Court. (Video of the announcement here via NYT).) It's not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It's that she's so transparently a crony/"diversity" pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste. If this is President Bush's bright idea to buck up his sagging popularity--among conservatives as well as the nation at large--one wonders whom he would have picked in rosier times. Shudder.

Instapundit:

Perhaps they'll change my mind, but so far I'm underwhelmed.
(snip)
What troubles the social conservatives is the fear that Miers may not be a social conservative. That doesn't bother me, of course. But I don't see what she brings to the table. Granted, you could have said that about other Supreme Court picks who turned out to be great justices. But you could have said that about a lot of other Supreme Court picks who didn't turn out to be great justices, too.

Meanwhile, this won't comfort social conservatives, but it doesn't comfort me, either:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the president to consider Miers, according to several officials familiar with Bush's consultations with Congress.

Ramesh Ponnuru of NRO:

It's an inspiring testament to the diversity of the president's cronies. Wearing heels is not an impediment to being a presidential crony in this administration! I can only assume that the president felt that his support was slipping in this important bloc, and he had to do something to shore it up.

Captain's Quarters:

All that being said, I find this pick mystifying. Miers just turned 60 years old, not exactly ready to retire but potentially giving up at least a decade for the Bush legacy on the Supreme Court. Other women with judicial experience and/or a stronger track record of conservatism could have been found. She didn't graduate from a top-drawer legal school (SMU), and she didn't clerk for a highly influential jurist (US District Judge Joe Estes).

Not only does Harriet Miers not look like the best candidate for the job, she doesn't even look like the best female candidate for the job. If judicial experience is a liability, why not Maureen Mahoney, who is younger, has argued cases at the Supreme Court, and worked within the Deputy Solicitor's Office after clerking for William Rehnquist? Better yet, why not nominate J. Michael Luttig or Michael McConnell, with their brilliant and scholarly approaches to the law and undeniable qualifications through years of judicial experience? Why not Edith Hollan Jones, if Bush wanted to avoid the confrontation that Janice Rogers Brown would have created?

Miers may make a great stealth candidate, but right now she looks more like a political ploy. Color me disappointed in the first blush.

Oh, and did I mention the Catholic bloggers?

Like Professor Bainbridge:

Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the SCOTUS. I'm appalled:

1. She's 60. There were lots of highly qualified younger candidates out there who would have sat on the court for decades.
2. She has no judicial experience.
3. She has no public track record of proven conservative judicial values (what happened to Bush's 2000 promise to appoint people in the old of Scalia and Thomas?). How do we know she won't be another Souter? or Kennedy?
4. She's a Bush crony, which is an unfortunate choice for an administration that has been fairly charged with excessive cronyism (anybody remember ex-FEMA head Mike Brown?).
5. Her resume pales in comparison to those of some of the other leading candidates.
6. Why is the leader of a party that is supposedly against affirmative action making an appointment that can only be explained as an affirmative action choice?
7. And if Bush was bound and determined to make an affirmative action choice, why not go with a more experienced and qualified woman like Edith Jones or minority like Emilio Garza?

This appointment reeks of cronyism, which along with prideful arrogance seems to be the besetting sin of the Bush presidency. At this point, I see no reason - none, nada, zilch - for conservatives who care about the courts to lift a finger to support this candidate.

Part-Time Pundit:

So much for this supposedly conservative President

Feddie of Southern Appeal:

I am done with President Bush: Harriet Miers? Are you freakin' kidding me?!

Can someone--anyone--make the case for Justice Miers on the merits? Seriously, this is the best the president could do?

And what really sticks in my craw is the president's unwillingness to have a national debate about the proper method of interpreting the Constitution. I suppose I should have seen this coming when White House staffers freaked out over Chief Justice Roberts's ties to the Federalist Society.

Thanks for nothing, Mr. President. You had better pray that Justice Miers is a staunch judicial conservative, because if she turns out to be another O'Connor then the Republican Party is in for a world of hurt.

Un-freakin'-believable. Oh, and if any of you RNC staffers are reading, you can take my name off the mailing list. I am not giving the national Republican Party another dime.

Update: O.k., I've received several calls and emails from conservative buddies telling me to chill out and reserve judgment on Miers. I suppose I should do that, but I am really furious about the president's unwillingness to nominate an outspoken legal conservative.

Mark Shea of Catholic and Enjoying It:

Conservatives are now in the weird position of hoping the Evil Party can doom a Bush nominee to the Court. What a stupid, stupid move by the Administration.

Weird.

As I watch the reverb around the blegalsphere I'm beginning to think that Bush has finally managed to alienate his base. Way to go, Mr. President.

As I say, I do not trust princes. Never have. Never will. My only question is why this woman? He should have just nominated one of his daughters.

Well, that should put to rest any thought that all conservatives are now happily tail-wagging and panting as they await treats from President Bush. No, his base is upset. Very upset.

They have good reason to be. Here is Ms. Miers profile, courtesy of The Washington Post (hat tip to Michelle Malkin for the link.:

In 1989, she was elected to a two-year term as an at-large candidate on the Dallas City Council. She chose not to run for re-election when her term expired.

* Miers also served as general counsel for the transition team of Governor-elect George W. Bush in 1994.

* From 1995 until 2000, Miers served as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, a voluntary public service position she undertook while maintaining her legal practice and other responsibilities. When then-Governor Bush appointed Miers to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission, it was mired in scandal, and she served as a driving force behind its cleanup.

Miers came to Washington, D.C., in 2001:

* She was appointed assistant to the president and staff secretary on Jan. 20, 2001.

* In 2003, Miers was promoted to assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff.

* Miers has served as counsel to the president since February 2005.

Compare her credentials to Janice Rogers Brown, Miguel Estrada, William Pryor, Priscilla Owens or Michael O'Connell, and many Conservatives' collective anger becomes more understandable. She lacks judicial experience, although so did ten previous SCOTUS justices, including previous CJs William Rehnquest and John Marshall. Her judicial philosophy and social convictions are unknown. With the vital role the Supreme Court will play in determining the evolution--or self-destruction--of our society, Fools insist that Justices to the High Court must faithfully apply the constitution to law. Not use the Constitution as a cover for an entirely Reasonable ideology that undermines all of society.

If a culture of life and a civilization of love are to arise on American soil, they must be nourished by the CST principles safeguarded by the Constitution, such as equal protection under the law, the right to private property, federalism and the separation of powers. If SCOTUS continues to unleash the Nanny State with murder-for-convenience policies, then we'll soon wake up to an America none of us recognizes. In fact, we make awaken to a society that can't even be called human, not to mention humane.

Only principled justices committed to the proper role of the Judiciary will rein in the Nanny State. Chief Justice Roberts may indeed be that kind of man. There's enough emptiness of record in Ms. Miers' backround to wonder aloud whether or not she's that kind of woman. The President's choice looks, at best, as a serious, strategic oversight. At worst, it looks like an arrogant exercise in cronyism and political presumption. Some might even argue that President Bush all but said to pro-lifers, "So what? Where are you going to go? Huh? So what if I appoint a friend of mine? You have no one else that will even give you the time of day. Just trust me. If you don't, too bad!"

Now, I'm not one of them. I am disappointed, however. I'm not convinced she'll be a Justice that faithfully interpretes the constitution. She simply has too little record for me to evaluate her judicial approach. Considering he passed on several other candidates that appeared far more qualified, I'm left scratching my head.

Does the President believe he has the political capital to spite his base? He'll wind up keeping them home in 2006, and may even weaken his successor's ticket in 2008. Whoever he, or she, will be.

The Administration's failure to communicate the nation's Iraq War and GWOT policy with greater clarity and conviction. The missteps, blunders, and clear under-estimation of the terrorists and Baathists' campaign of butchery in Iraq. President Bush's reluctance to veto any spending bill coming out of a Republican-controlled Congress. The Federal Government's miscoordinated response in NOLA after Hurricane Katrina. Now, his failure to nominate an unambiguously conservative Justice to the Supreme Court. The President's mouth-dropping decisions lately have those that supported him the most angry and confused. He looks less and less like the President they thought they elected. He looks more and more like the machination that nearly every modern president has appeared to become after their second term.

Meanwhile, he says to all of his supporters: "Trust me." That becomes more difficult each passing day. I hope that Ms. Miers is everything the president says she is. I shouldn't have to merely hope. I should know.

So should we all!