Harriet Miers: What's All the Hubbub?

THIS JUST IN: Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist has died, and President Bush has nominated the virtually unknown Harriet Miers to fill Rehnquist's seat. How's that for news, huh? That's right, depend on Neo for all your late-breaking news.

Emphasis on "late"...

Okay, since you all know the story, I'm gonna jump right in. Bush's nomination of Miers has thus far been fraught with controversy; not from the Left, mind you, but from the Right! Various Conservatives have referred to her nomination as Cronyism, "a slap in the face" to conservatism, and a "gamble." Democrats, meanwhile, tend to view it as a victory, as shown when Daily Kos proclaimed:

"...my early sense is that this is already a victory -- both politically and judicially -- for Democrats. In fact, it should be great fun watching conservatives go after Bush. He may actually break that 39-40 floor in the polls, given he's just pissed off the very people who have propped up his failed presidency."

Obviously, somebody's unhappy. With a large segment of the Republican voting base going ballistic, one has to ask: "What's all the hubbub? Can't we just be happy Bush nominated a pro-lifer who might help overturn Roe v. Wade? Can't we just trust that she'll rule according to the Constitution?"

Maybe.

Though I haven't studied Mier's history in great depth, I have read and heard a variety of opinions regarding her character, and the wisdom (or lack thereof) of her nomination. Here are the undisputed facts:

• Miers is an Evangelical Christian.

• Miers is reported to be pro-life.

• Bush places a great amount of faith in Miers.

• The people who know Miers, when questioned about her potential as a SCOTUS Justice, have often made reference to her Conservative worldview.

Good stuff, right? Well... maybe. At this point, I am not horribly worried about discovering a year from now that we have another Souter on the bench; from what I've read, she seems conservative enough. I could be wrong, of course, but I've not seen anyone produce enough evidence to suggest that Miers will be an unreliable Justice; the real problem with the nomination is who was passed over.

It is well known that Miers has no experience as a judge, which can hardly be taken as a positive trait. One can debate whether or not this will hamper her ability to uphold the Constitution, but the fact is that there are many other potential nominees who hold much better credentials than Miers, who have been working within the judicial system to further the cause of Conservatism and the interpretation of the Constitution as it was written for years. These nominees were all snubbed, so to speak, when Bush nominated the woman who was his personal lawyer to sit on the Supreme Court bench.

In the eyes of many Conservatives, the Honorable Janice Rogers Brown would have been the wisest pick, and allow me to say that I wholeheartedly agree. Brown has a provable record of Conservatism, which is a plus, but is not the sole reason I would support her nomination. Rather, the reason for my support is her record of Conservatism along with her near-immunity to a filibuster. Why would a reliable Conservative be immune to a filibuster, you ask?

Anybody remember all those judges that Bush nominated to lower courts, only to have them filibustered in the Democats' monumental obstruction of American democracy? Well, if you will remember, Janice Rogers Brown was one of those filibustered nominees. Not only was she filibustered, though; she was later confirmed after a Senate compromise determined she was not enough of an "extraordinary circumstance" to filibuster. Therefore, if she was not worth filibustering before, how can she possibly be worth filibustering now? She'd either be a shoo-in for confirmation, or she would provoke a filibuster that would thoroughly discredit the Democratic Party; either way, I'd be pretty happy.

Unfortunately though, it seems the President doesn't see things my way. Maybe he's blinded by cronyism. Maybe he just didn't think things through well enough. Maybe, on the other hand, he knows something I don't. No matter what, I can't say I like this nomination.

The adoration of Liberals always leaves me uneasy with the object of their affection; when that object is a Supreme Court nominee, I start to break out into cold sweats. When that nominee was appointed by a Republican President, however, I know that something's wrong. As hard as I may try, I cannot fathom why the President would appoint a little-known, liberal-pleasing personal acquaintance rather than an established Conservative whose nomination is sure to result in political gains for Republicans.

Luckily, I don't care to delve into Bush's possible motives for nominating Miers. At this point, I only care about getting another Conservative on the bench, preferably an established Conservative whose worldview is not in doubt. In the Honorable Janice Rogers Brown, Bush had a golden opportunity, a chance to nominate just such a conservative judge who was all but sure to be confirmed. But he blew it.

So now we are all left to wonder, "Will Miers maintain her reputation of conservatism once she is confirmed to the Supreme Court?" If that same question had been asked about a nominated Janice Rogers Brown, the answer would have been "Without a doubt." When dealing with Miers, however, it seems we can only answer the question with one, rather unreassuring word:

"Maybe."

CORRECTION: Miers was appointed after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, but she is to fill the the seat of the recently-retired Sandra Day O'Connor.