ConfirmThem

By Lorie Byrd Posted in SCOTUS — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I am not a lawyer, so I defer to the lawyers here and those commenting elsewhere on the subject of Harriet Miers' legal acumen. Much of the commentary I have seen today in the blogosphere has not been based on anything that Miers has said or done as a lawyer, though.

Harriet Miers' nomination was announced less than nine hours ago. I don't think I know enough about her to decide whether the President made a horrible or a brilliant pick. I suspect that the final judgment on it will fall somewhere in between though. I am just surprised that so many are being so quick to declare this pick a disaster when so much about Harriet Miers is still unknown. Some of those commenting in response to my initial Polipundit post on the Miers' nomination have already decided to pick up their toys and go home. I ask those who are unhappy with this selection to take a deep breath and reserve final judgment until all the facts are known.

Most of the criticism of the pick that I am reading has to do with 1) her qualifications and resume, 2) those who were well qualified, but were not picked, 3) that her positions on many issues are unknown to us, 4) that she gave money to Al Gore and was a Democrat, 5) and that many Democrats including Kos and Bob Beckel are happy.

On issue #1 above (resume and qualifications) , I say that the biggest problem now regarding her qualifications is that today alone Democrats have amassed a wealth of quotes from conservatives about how unqualified she is. If they do determine she is a Scalia or Thomas-like conservative, they won't even have to fight the ideology fight. They will easily be able to pull out the unqualified argument, as they did with Thomas during his hearing. The difference now is that they won't even have to make it for themselves. They can just quote conservatives.

For those concerned that she isn't an "insider in conservative elite judicial circles," see the post by Carol Platt Liebau below.

Regarding #2 (others more qualified) , I say that there are many, many, many (and probably even many, many, many more) candidates that would have been wonderful picks, and who have records on the bench. But there might not be many more that President Bush knows better than Miers, who he has worked closely with for some time now. For those wanting to compare this pick to some others he has made in the past that might seem to have been based more on cronyism than merit, consider Bush's regard for the Supreme Court. I think the President has expressed many times over the past four years that he realizes how important his role in nominating judges to the bench, and especially to this highest court, is -- certainly much more important than lower level appointments he has made. I am not trusting blindly, but rather am looking at the nomination from the perspective that Bush would nominate someone he believes will uphold the judicial principles that conservatives hold dear. From that perspective, he has judged Miers to be a good choice. Whether or not his judgment proves to be correct seems to me to be the appropriate question and I don't think enough is known to answer it.

On #3 (her positions are unknown), the President has worked closely with Miers and likely knows her positions on many of the issues that would be of concern to conservatives. I agree with Jayson Javitz' take on this, that Bush has much more information on this than any of us do. For those charging cronyism, consider it in the positive. As a "crony" of Bush, he probably knows much more clearly what her specific views are on various issues than he would even a judge who had ruled on those same issues. He may not know specifically how she would rule on a particular case, as he couldn't know for even someone who had served as a judge for many years, but he may well know what her core beliefs are which could serve as a basis for how she might rule.

For those specifically concerned about Miers' position on the life issue, consider this.

On #4 (she is a Democrat who supported Gore), for those too young to remember, in 1988 many Democrats in Texas were conservatives and Al Gore was perhaps the most conservative Democrat running for president. (He didn't lose his mind until he became VP, and don't forget Tipper's crusade against the music industry during that period.) Even my beloved Senator, Jesse Helms, was a Democrat, although it was long, long ago. So was Ronald Reagan. Some just gave up the Democrat registration later than others. From what I have read about Miers' religious background, her switch to supporting Republicans may have also been a result of some major life changes that led her to change her positions on some issues, rather than simply her party affiliation. I am sure that we will hear much more on this topic, and will learn much more to base opinions on, before the confirmation hearings commence.

Regarding #5 (Democrats are happy), don't worry. You can bet that as the proceedings get underway, even those Democrats smiling about the Miers nomination today will find plenty to hate about her later.

I don't love this nomination, but I don't hate it either. I am not blindly trusting President Bush, but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and I am reserving judgment until I know a lot more than I do now.

(This is a later version of something I posted earlier at Polipundit.)