Let The Backlash Begin

I’m not one to have a Coulter moment here, but Harriet Miers? Talk about unproven, and there are plenty of conservatives this morning that would like to roast the president over the open spit. He had the opportunity to make a good move. The lists were long and plentiful of solid, proven jurists. Lord knows why he chose this woman; this reminds me of the most recent move made by the president in replacing Michael Brown as head of FEMA. That move was plain and simple cronyism. In an interview this morning, John Kyl stated that he was concerned about Miers because as he pointed out, the president knows her better than anyone else, and that looks too much like cronyism.

But because there is a lack of information on this nominee, both sides are going to have problems with her. One of the problems I have with Miers is she isn’t a judge. She’s a lawyer. This woman has never had to render a decision on a question of the Constitution. Yes, like John Roberts was, she has represented DC interests, as well as private, outside interests. But as I pointed out for Roberts, a lawyer is hired to do a job for their client. She did her job as well as Roberts did. On that, I have no complaint.

To nominate a lawyer is not an unprecedented move. We’ll remember that Chief Justice Rehnquist was in the AG’s office prior to being named to the court, BUT this nomination looks more like the nomination of Abe Fortas. He was the crooked judge that LBJ nominated for Chief Justice as was killed by both sides in the Senate. And whereas I wouldn’t normally bring this up, but the diversity she will bring to the court may not be the type that WE wanted. ConfirmThem has a good round-up of not only opinion, but reaction to Miers. This includes a copy of campaign donations where—in black-and-white—we see that she likes both sides of the aisle.

As I read more about this woman, the more concern grows. Not only are Democrats, like Harry Reid, speaking positive about her, but so is the media. That scares the ever-living hell out of me. If I start to see sweet-nothings coming out of Schumer’s mouth, or Kennedy’s mouth, then we have cause for alarm. But let me state this about Miers.

First, she’s 60 years old. Not exactly the age WE were shooting for. Luttig, Williams, and even Jones are younger than her, and would have given the court a much longer time on the court. Second, as far as I have seen in research this morning, she’s unqualified. She’s not a jurist, and hasn’t dealt with questions regarding the Constitution. Third, her views regarding the proper interpretation of the Constitution goes beyond unclear, and borders on murky or questionable. Fourth, as stated above, this smacks of cronyism as she is close to the president. Fifth, the nomination of Miers tells me that the president went weak in the knees, and didn’t offer up a known, solid, Constitutionally-minded commodity.

Now, on the flip side, I am willing to grant her leeway. There isn’t a lot that is known about her, and much of what is above is initial reaction, mixed with a tad bit of anger. Maybe it’s because I look at this nomination as a sort of concession rather than strength. And I will grant her this much. Below is a statement from Miers, this morning, from the Oval Office:

"The wisdom of those who drafted our constitution and conceived our nation as functioning with three strong and independent branches have proven truly remarkable.

"It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders’ vision of the proper role of the courts and our society. If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the constitution."

Now, if she believes in this, then we have a solid nominee. But if this is lip service, and she turns into another O’Connor, or worse, a Souter, then we have great cause for concern. Just looking at her stance on abortion gives me a moment of pause; she did want to have that decision placed back in the hands of the people. In 1993, she spear-headed the move to get the ABA off of the idea of abortion on demand. If this is still her philosophy then she may not be that bad of a pick.

As with anything dealing with these picks, more information is needed. Over the next few days, I’m sure we’ll get exactly that. And until we see more information, I’ll withhold my main decision. Right now, it’s a coin toss; it’s a crap-shoot. I have confidence that the president understood what America wanted in terms of a jurist. It is a distinct possibility that he wanted to avoid a knock-down, drag-out fight. Though, as the president stated after his inauguration, he "has political capital" that he intended "to spend."

If the president had as much capital as he led others to believe, then why not nominate a Luttig, or a Williams, or a Garza? He had the guts to nominate Brown, Owen, and Pryor, and stood beside them as the democrats savaged them. Why not do it now? He promised us jurists like Scalia and Thomas. There is cause for concern in the nomination of Miers, and rightly so. But, the jury is still out on this. We’ll have to sit back and see what happens, what gets revealed, and what she has for the Judiciary Committee in terms of answers.

Publius II