There are many reasons why President Bush's nomination of his personal attorney, Harriet Miers, should be opposed. This is an issue which has unexpectedly divided the president's "base" of voters; in my opinion, because most of the base is conservative first, Republican second. Those who insist on supporting this nomination, and there are a number of very prominent folks, like Hugh Hewitt, who do, seem to me to be doing so out of respect for the president and a wish to re-unify the party. While I think those are nice sentiments, I feel the negatives outweigh these sentiments.
We Know Nothing About This Nominee. Ever since Judge Robert Bork was savaged by liberal Democrats back in the '80s, conservative Republicans have increasingly relied on "stealth" nominations -- people who have very little record, whose personal views are largely unknown -- in an effort to avoid confrontations with the same Democrats. In many cases, this has come back to bite conservatives, with nominees like David Souter turning out to be liberal judicial activists. So the whole "stealth" idea is, to me, a bad one to begin with. And Harriet Miers is a "super-stealth" nominee. No one seems to know for sure what her views are on anything. Her supporters rely on the fact that she's an evangelical Christian as proof that she's a reliable conservative. But this strikes me as pretty thin.
We Shouldn't Be Sending Up Stealth Candidates. Republicans now control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. If ever there was a time to lose our fear of liberal retribution, now is the time. The president has decided, for some reason, to try and avoid the fight that conservatives around the nation had been salivating over: that of going to battle to get an "originalist" put onto the Supreme Court, with everyone knowing he/she was a conservative from the get-go. While Chief Justice John Roberts sailed through the confirmation hearings by disavowing any particular philosophy and by distancing himself from conservative comments he'd made in papers written throughout his career, the idea of getting an "originalist" like Judge Michael Luttig, whose positions everyone already is familiar with, onto the court was something conservatives were ready to go to battle for. We want to see an end to liberal judicial activism and nominees should be proud of their rulings and positions, not afraid of discussing them.
Perpetuating Stealth Sends a Bad Message to the Next Generation. What the president is saying, intentionally or not, with his nomination of Harriet Miers, is that if you are a law student or young in your career, and/or have any hope of vying for a federal judgeship or Supreme Court justice-ship, don't write anything that states your views; don't speak to anyone about your personal philosophy on anything remotely controversial. This is a horrible message to send to people. We need people to express their opinions and to fight for what they believe in. Suppressing that is unhealthy for the country and for the people with the opinions.
Others Are Better-Qualified. I'm not a lawyer, but even I can see that there are a huge number of people in the country, male and female, who are better qualified -- have a more "appropriate" resume -- for this position than Harriet Miers. Even the White House, when extolling Ms. Miers's virtues, seemed unable to come up with much more to cheer about besides the fact that she is an evangelical Christian and had worked with Meals on Wheels. In truth, she has run a large law firm in Texas and headed the Texas state bar. However, she is reported to have never practiced Constitutional Law, but was a corporate lawyer. She obviously has never judged before -- something others have ignored or minimized, but which I think is important. The polls before this nomination clearly indicated that people wanted the president to pick "the best person for the job," regardless of gender, race, etc. In short, if you were "hiring" a justice, given a list of candidates, would you choose Ms. Miers as "the best?"
She is a Crony. This may not seem like much, but it sets a bad precedent and looks very unprofessional. You don't nominate your buddies to positions at this level, especially when they come with guaranteed lifetime tenure. The Supreme Court is both the highest law in the land and its justices are there for life. If you want to make an argument that she's deserving, then nominate her for a federal judgeship in a circuit court. This is still a prestigious position and one of great authority. But the Supreme Court?? Come on.
The Liberals Like Her. When you get guys like Harry Reid saying they like your nominee, you know you're in trouble. Either that or you're brilliant beyond measure because you completely conned the guy. I like the president just fine, but I don't think he's one of these "insane brilliant" people who could pull that off. Add to that the fact that he met with Democrats -- consulting? -- before making the nomination and you make it look like Reid and the other nutty liberals actually signed off or even suggested Ms. Miers as the nominee. That is frightening and if true would also set a really bad precedent.
There are plenty of very prominent conservatives on both sides of this issue, so it's not a slam-dunk for either side. Here is a really interesting table of data about the discussion that sort of encapsulates all the arguments and the people making them. With confirmation hearings hoping to be done well before Thanksgiving, it should be an interesting next few weeks...
Posts
