Texas Two-Stepping on Miers

[Senator Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, and Harriet E. Miers Monday at the Capitol. Mr. Reid had suggested that Ms. Miers be considered for the Supreme Court.--NY Times]

The Democratic Majority leader praised the President's nominee while Conservative senators say nothing. Are we through the looking glass yet? The New York Times covers the unusual responses to Ms. Miers nomination here.

Notice the strange bed-fellows the President's odd decision has made:

In a topsy-turvy moment in the Capitol, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader in the Senate, stood alongside Harriet E. Miers on Monday and had only kind things to say about her selection by President Bush for the Supreme Court.

Mr. Reid called her "a very fine lawyer," said her lack of judicial experience was "a plus, not a minus" and pronounced himself pleased that she was a trial lawyer. "That's what I am," he said.

For Mr. Reid, who suggested two weeks ago at a breakfast meeting that Mr. Bush consider Ms. Miers for the Supreme Court, the selection may have been a personal triumph. Evidence that, perhaps, a Republican president took to heart some advice from a Democratic leader.

But Mr. Reid's effusive praise has also put Senate Democrats and the liberal advocacy groups who support them in an awkward spot.

"I think it would have been better not to have said that until we get to the hearing," Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said when told of Mr. Reid's remarks. "The Judiciary Committee has a job to do."

Mr. Reid was not the only person saying unexpected things. The selection of Ms. Miers, a close confidante of Mr. Bush who both sides say has been a trailblazer for women in the law, turned politics inside out on Capitol Hill, where she quickly began her courtship of senators.

Conservative Republican stalwarts who had ardently defended the last nominee, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., were strangely silent. That is an indication that Ms. Miers could face trouble from the right, which has demanded a nominee with a record demonstrating a willingness to revisit Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 abortion decision.

Democrats, intent on preserving their right to block Ms. Miers even as their leader came forth with effusive praise, sounded cautious, yet oddly relieved.

(snip)

While Republicans like Mr. Cornyn were polite in their praise, the most conservative Republican senators were mostly mum. One ardent opponent of abortion, Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, issued no statement. Another, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, said simply that he wanted to know more about Ms. Miers. Senator John Thune of South Dakota said he would "reserve judgment."

Hmmm. The Senate Minority leader praises Ms. Miers. His mouth-foaming more Reasonable collegues want to shut him up so they can throw her nomination out determine her qualifications. Judiciary Committee Chair Arlen Specter (R-PA) believes her nomination will go smoothly, while conservative senators such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) said nothing.

Maybe that's because Ms. Miers is more invisible than the stealth bomber. No one quite knows what to expect. That's what disturbs the President's base so much. Many other qualified jurists with proven conservative credentials remain on the sidelines, while a Texas and Bush White House insider with no judicial experience and a contested status as a top lawyer gets the nod. Democrats smell a set-up, and besides, their mouth-foaming, extreme left base won't allow them to acquiese on any Bush nominee without spilling blood on the Senate floor. Republicans of both the social conservative and libertarian factions scratch their heads and ask, "who is Ms. Miers, exactly? What does she believe, again?"

Fierce independents and proud swing-voters like myself aren't easily convinced when a conservative president offers up a candidate that we can't even see as "moderate" or independent. I would have more respect for the President if he nominated someone with clear conservative credentials. Somehow, when the President won re-election with the highest turn-out in years and the largest amount of popular votes in a generation, he became a leader that appears to shun the conservative "label" as much as Democrats shun the "liberal" designation. What's going on? Shouldn't the President, whose party controlls Congress, nominate a candidate for the High Court that share his philosophy, without resorting to a "stealth candidate" that he tells his party faithful to trust?

The President's base--and his opposition--remain unsatisfied. No one knows what kind of justice Ms. Miers will make. The same president that tells his base to trust him has phoned in his pro-life support and surrendered to the mouth-foaming Senate Democrats on crucial judicial nominations before. I can't see the political up-side to his current nomination. I wonder if his political advisors do.

He's throwing away an invaluable opportunity to restore the Supreme Court to her proper role as an interpretive, rather than an activist, Court. Society may pay for his incomprehensible political calculation. What a shame!