Bush Nominates Miers, Disappoints Everyone

In Cheney VP fashion, the head of George W. Bush's Supreme Court search committee has proven to the final destination of the search. The President has nominated his personal counsel, Texas lawyer Harriet Miers, to replace retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This is a bad thing no matter who you are. Let me break it down and explain why.

She's not qualified.

I'm sorry. Not to be mean, but there's nothing to qualify this (I'm sure very sharp) woman except her proximity to W. It's not just that she didn't go to a top 10 law school (or for that matter a Top 50). It's not that she's never been a judge before. It's not that she is not a well known or well respected legal mind. A Supreme Court nominee need not be all of these things. But if you're lacking in one area, you need to compensate in the others. Miers goes 0-3.

To be fair, she is a successful private attorney, and blazed trails in Texas as the first female partner at a major firm and first head of the Texas bar. That's excellent. But it's still true that her resume consists only of private practice, running the Texas lottery from 1995-2000, and then going to work for George W. Neither side is going to refute the charge that she's a legal lightweight. She is.

She's a bad nominee if you're a liberal...

Miers' presence on the court would constitute "Bush packing." She could never doubt that she owed the position 100% to Bush Jr. If Alberto Gonzalez was white, was a woman, never served on the Texas Supreme Court or as U.S. Attorney General, and went to Southern Methodist instead of Harvard you'd have Harriet Miers. Sure she might go Souter on the President and just give him the finger once she has the job, but she's undeniably there as benificiary of a personal gift.

(above: POTUS kicking it with the nominee in Crawford, TX)

But she also may prove to be the conservative liberals fear. While President of the Texas Bar she vehemently opposed a statement backing abortion rights. Some have said this may only have been because she felt the Bar should remain neutral, but it is the only time she has tipped her hand on the subject, and she seems to hold Roe in less esteem than O'Connor.

And the frustration for liberals here is that Miers is a complete unknown. There's no way Democrats can know where she stands. They have nothing to review. Nothing to ask her about or hold her to. She may indeed be a figure worthy of the filibuster they've been mulling, but they simply can't know this and thus can't pull the trigger. She will give them fits. She's even more unopposable than Roberts on ideoligical grounds--if he was a blank slate then she is a black hole of expressed legal opinion--and unless they take the nasty route of questioning her qualification for the position (actually a more Constitutionally viable reason) they have little to rise against.

...and a bad nominee if you're a conservative.

Interestingly, Miers will probably meet stronger opposition from the right than the left. Conservative "pro-family" groups are not satisfied and are already mobilizing against her, in large part because they are not convinced she's a serious conservative. For starters, she was a Democrat through the 80's and gave money to Clinton in '92 when he ran against her present boss's daddy (she also gave money to Gore). Before latching on with Governor W in the Lone Star state, she really seemed to be a donkey, and thus no one trusts her credentials. Aside from her pre-W misallegiances she also was endorsed weeks ago by opposition leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Placating dingy Harry is surely not what social conservatives wanted and they must be sorely disappointed after helping elect Bush to two terms only to see two court positions opened up and filled without a single Thomas-Scalia conservative added to the court. Newsweek is convinced that Miers is not hostile to Roe and that Bush has successfully duped the pro-life crowd he pretends to endorse but in reality (e.g. practical matters of policy) does not. With 55 Republican votes in the Senate and a plethora of brilliant conservative minds sitting on federal benches around the country, they had to have hoped for more than Bush nominating an undistinguished personal friend.

The pick doesn't even make sense politically for Bush himself.

In the wake of the Michael Brown fiasco, one would expect Bush to avoid even a hint of cronyism. That's why it's shocking that he has placed another loyalty-over-qualification figure in a top federal position. It's also suprising that at a time when a majority of the country is unhappy with him, the President has selected a nominee that will excite absolutely no one and satisfy neither side of the political aisle.

I'm sure Ms. Miers is a wonderful intelligent woman, but I give this pick two thumbs down. I suspect many Senators will as well. Almost all either feel pressure either from women's groups or social conservatives and both will be out in force against this nominee.

Links
Bill Kristol sums up the conservative discontent - "a combination of cronyism and capitulation" David Frum laments "an unforced error."
Daily Kos hails "a victory--both politically and judicially--for Democrats."
Slate's Emily Bazelon sees a "nasty mix" of "cronyism and affirmative action" and says the President didn't need to give up brilliance and accomplishment along with the y chromosome in choosing a nominee.
Bruce Reed dubs the Supreme Court "a new official dumping ground for hacks."
"Think of her as a very capable indentured servant of the Bush family," advises Andrew Sullivan, who sees a tough but unqualified nominee. "After Roberts, we have gone from a clear A grade to a C +"