Before I get labelled as a HH Cheerleader, I wanted to fully think about this whole thing with Harriet Miers and form some opinions. Despite my best attempts to endorse this nomination, I find myself objecting to the nomination of Mrs. Miers. It is not because of her religion. It is not because of her lack of bench experience. It has more to do with the President and his promise than Mrs. Miers, or I should say, what Mrs. Miers has shown us so far.
Firstly, in my weighing of the issue, I looked at the evidence. Mrs. Miers appears to be pro-life, which I am as well. She signed some pledge to be against abortion except when it endangers the mother. Great. Hoever, what does this say other than that she knew her constituency in Dallas? I applaud her virtue in this matter, if it be genuine, but producing this pledge does not prove a thing, nor does it get to the heart of the matter.
As others have more eloquently and more elaborately said, this goes back to what we as Conservatives have been promised. We were promised conservative judges, proven commodities that were in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. I heard this President, along with Matt, live and in person 3 times say that phrase. To me, Miers does not hold up. While Matt has his misgivings about Chief Justice Roberts, I think he will be a great Chief Justice and is in line with what the President promised--judges who interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it. Judges who interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. With Miers, we aren't getting that, at least we cannot be certain we are getting that.
Miers has no paper trail. She has been a trial lawyer, head of the Texas Bar, head of a prestigious law firm, but she has not written on Constitutional law. I am not saying non-judges should not be included, but Ms. Miers has shown no inclination or history of interpreting Constitutional law. She has shown little except helping the President pick good nominees fo rthe bench. This does not mean she will be a good nominee. Knowing what the boss wants and finding it; vs. your own philosophy are not mutally exclusive.
I really wanted to trust the President. I did. He has had great success in picking great candidates for the bench during his tenure, like Pickering, Rogers Brown, Owen, McConnell, and also the fillibustered Miguel Estrada. All were strong constitutional scholars with known philosophies and clear grounding in Constitutional law. I see none of that with Mrs. Miers. I tried to, I tried to wait for her answers to questions.
What I have seen, in my examination of her questionairre (or excerpts), is someone who is trying hard to evade the question, but who lacks the credibility of evading with style and with verve. Mrs. Miers is trying to manuever with a towtruck, whereas Judge Roberts had the intricate weavings and movements of a finely tuned Porche. Ms. Miers has shown a propensity to obfuscate. She has shown she can follow orders and find good people. She has shown she can run a business, and an professional organization. Howver, she has not shown the independent thought on law needed for a Supreme Court judge. She has no experience arguing before the court, or arguing cases involving Constitutional law. She has no paper trail on Constitutional law. All we have are vague statements of "I know what the President wants." Her questionairre, I hate to agree with some DEmocrats, was insulting, or at least the parts I saw of it.
Maybe she is not a very good writer. Maybe she will better articulate herself in person in the hearings. However, I do not think so. In my opinion, as an historian and as someone who has studied Constitutional law, she is not able to pass muster. If she is truly loyal to the President, she should withdraw her acceptance of the nomination. She should find some excuse and get away. Fast.
The President has great goals for Social Security and reforming the tax code, along with prosecuting the War on terror. I fear, though, that his whole Presidency is riding on this. Harriet Miers is not the person to bet the Presidency on. Please, Ms. Miers step down.
What is also disappointing is the PResident in this situation. He simply says, trust me. Excuse me? Sir, we trusted your father and got David Souter. Sir, we trusted Ronald Reagan on this issue and got SandyO'Connor. This is too important to just say trust me. What is disappointing is that you were not willing to fight this out. I understand, sir, that you are worried about McCain's Gang and their Unholy agreement about fillibustering. But, let that hang on their heads. You had the political warriors waiting to fight for your nominee, and instead you showed you don't even have confidence in your loyal supporters to harass the Senate into supporting your nominee. Sir, we need to have this fight. It is not about the fight, but rather about the principle. You chose not to fight for the principle, and chose the less path. And sadly, you are reaping the whirlwind.
Liberals talk about there being no WMD, they talk about there being no evidence of them. There is more evidence of WMD than there is of Mierrs qualification and competence, sir. If they ever wanted to get you for making up evidence, this would be the case. There was intel on WMD, however, there is no intel on Miers' judicial intel.
