George Will has a piece in the Sunday Washington Post in which he excoriates Miers apologists for defending the indefensible. He ends with a throw down to presidential hopefuls in the Senate:
As for Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch’s invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush’s reckless abuse of presidential discretion — or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such — can never be considered presidential material.
Youch.
Also, a couple of major right-of-center MSM organs have weighed in institutionally in the last couple of days. The WSJ editors pronounced the Miers nomination “a political blunder of the first order.” The Economist observes that Bush’s “decision to nominate a lightweight palace attendant who may not even be a conservative is forcing a wide-rangeing re-evaluation of his presidency on the right.”
I’m trying to decide whether I should feel offended by these remarks from a left-leaning lady who calls herself Strange Violin Music:
I don’t really believe much in cross-party dating. I think libertarian and really conservative types, who are mostly guys, tend to be in favor of it just because there are very few single women who share their worldview – so if they insisted on dating someone who agreed with their outlook on life, they’d have to settle for dating really skinny nerd chicks who wear glasses and go around in black turtlenecks endlessly wanting to discuss the theories of Hayek.
I suppose I shouldn’t take it personally. After all, I don’t wear glasses.
John Fund points out that an embarrassing defeat is the smallest risk the Bush administration assumes if it allows Harriet Miers’ confirmation hearings to go forward. Witnesses may be subpoenaed who claim that then-Governor Bush effectively used state funds to pay for the silence of persons who knew the details of his fortuitous acceptance into the National Guard during Vietnam. Miers can’t possibly be worth the risk. I predict this is all over by next Wednesday.
The Weekly Standard’s Duncan Currie is correct::
So when Harriet Miers’s defenders insinuate that her qualifications are meaningless–when they hint that adding a reliably conservative vote to the Court is all they care about–they do both the nominee and American conservatism a disservice.
The extent to which conservative opposition to Miers persists following yesterday’s Roe-related disclosures will be a good measure of its highmindedness. Show us what you’re made of, ladies and gentlemen of the right.
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan, like me, is optimistic:
Weirdly, I don’t think [Miers' pro-life positions] will shore her up among the conservative establishment, who oppose her for her mediocrity, primarily.
The WAPO has unearthed some 1989 questionaires that Harriet Miers filled out during her campaign for the Dallas City Council. Her answers are at least extremely suggestive of her position on Roe at that time. She answered “yes” to the following questions posed by Texans United for Life:
If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature?
If the Supreme Court returns to the States the right to restrict abortion, would you actively support legislation that would reinstate our 1973 abortion law that prohibited all abortions except those necessary to prevent the death of the mother?
Now, a lawyer can simultaneously believe that 1) abortion is a protected right under the constitution, and 2) the constitution should be amended to eliminate that right. But I am inclined to doubt that a lawyer who apparently couldn’t remember the significance of the Griswold decision this week had an opinion that nuanced.
I think these answers will eliminate any chance that Senate Democrats will support Miers, and thus will probably sink her nomination. While her statements will shore up support among conservatives who care only about whether Miers is a “reliable vote” on their favorite issue, thay will do nothing to change the minds of conservatives determined to see an excellent legal scholar on the bench.
In coming weeks the White House will directly enagage critics’ claims that Harriet Miers is professionally unqualified to sit on SCOTUS, the WAPO reports. The administration plans to rebut the charge that their nominee is unqualified in part by releasing an endorsement signed by three members of the elected Texas Supreme Court. “We feel confident we know what it takes to be a justice — Harriet Miers exceeds that mark,” write the lone star jurists.
I am inclined to agree that Miers is well-qualified to sit on the Texas Supreme Court. Perhaps a Miers campaign for a seat is the face-saving withdrawal strategy conservatives have been seeking.
Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff has obtained private email correspondence between a group of conservative scholars brought together by the White House to support the confirmation of its judicial nominees. Abigail Thernstrom, a distinguished conservative intellectual and member of the U.S. Civil Cights Commission, reportedly wrote:
We are keeping quiet. And hiding from the media. … As for undermining trust in the president, I am afraid he has accomplished that all on his own — without any help from us.
Legal scholar Michael Greve reportedly concurred:
It no longer matters whether she’s the second coming of John Marshall; the cronyism charge has stuck bec. it’s so obviously true.
These disclosures will suprise no one familiar with the work of these thoughtful and talented scholars.
In related news, The New York Times reports that support for Miers is nonexistent among Senate Republican staff attorneys charged with preparing the majority for uncoming confirmation hearings.
Bruce Reed over at Slate has some bon mots regarding Miers’ putative squeeze, Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht:
Hecht and Miers describe their relationship as on-again, off-again. For Miers’s sake, let’s hope it’s off again. Nathan Hecht is the kind of friend who would make anyone believe in the right to privacy.
He told the national press, “I know her judicial philosophy.” He told conservative bloggers like Marvin Olasky that Miers’s evangelical philosophy carries over into her judicial one: “She’s an originalist — that’s the way she takes the Bible.”
Only Wonkette cares whether Hecht “knows” Miers’s judicial philosophy in the Biblical sense. But now Hecht says he knows her Biblical philosophy in the judicial sense.
Senate: Who’s there?
Miers: Warren
Senate: Warren who?
Miers: Warren Peace. No, wait … Warren Burger!
from a commenter at Instapundit.