We’ve heard George Bush called many names by people on the right and left but not usually “You Harry Truman you!” — and if you live long enough, anything can happen…so read this:
What kind of president picks both John Roberts and Harriet Miers? They look like the ultimate odd couple. Roberts is not a Bush crony, he has a résumé to die for, and everyone who knows him says he’s unbelievably smart. Miers is more than a crony but certainly not less–Fred Barnes says no president has ever known a Supreme Court appointee as well as Bush knows Miers, and he may be right. She has the kind of résumé you expect to see in the director of a not-very-important federal agency: president of the local bar, member of the Dallas City Council, chair of the Texas Lottery Commission. Roberts looks like an idea guy, the person who figures out the theory that changes the way people think about his field. Miers looks more like a gifted schmoozer–at best, she’s the one who hires the idea guy. (Apparently, she had a lot to do with hiring Roberts.) The conservative meritocracy meets the old-gal network. It doesn’t add up….
That’s the view of William Stuntz in The New Republic. And, indeed, if you look at the history of Presidents and Supreme Court nominations, over the years some them of the rewarded their buddies with seats on the high court. The big backlash came during the administration of LBJ and his debacles with two nominees caused future Presidents to nominate people who were at least overtly independent of their direct influence.
What seems to be bugging conservatives and liberals (and moderates if you read a ton of material) on the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is how blatantly buddy-system this is. Even if it has been done before (kidnapping has been done before, too, but we don’t advise you try it).
Does anyone on the face of the earth REALLY believe that she is the most qualified person in the country after George Bush’s tireless search for a nominee?
If so he should banish the person who did the search.
Oops! That was Harriet Miers…
Another factor that makes this fascinating is the Machiaevelli factor. Is she really a stealth moderate (Democrats seem to think and hope so)? Is she really a stealth hard-line conservative (Bush sends out various signals to his upset loyalists that she is).
There’s so much winking going on by partisans on both sides that someone will soon file a sexual harrassment suit.
The most troublesome aspect about this nomination is summarized perfectly by law prof Glenn Reynolds, who notes sour blog reaction to the nomination and writes:
Things were quite different when Roberts was nominated, and the blogosphere hasn’t changed significantly in those few weeks. The difference in the reaction has to do with the nominee.
Bush raised the bar with Roberts, and then, having set the stage brilliantly for a McConnell, gave us a non-McConnell. Miers might turn out to be a great Justice, of course, but at the moment there’s absolutely no reason to expect that. Hope, maybe, but not expect. This isn’t the blogosphere’s fault, but the Administration’s.
YES: Bush seemed to raise the bar — then lower it. (Who’s responsible for giving the President those limbo lessons?)
In the end, barring some big revelation, Miers is likely to be confirmed as upset conservatives fall loyally into place (it took Rush and Sean about two seconds to begin their descent) and Democrats realize another nominee could be worse for them — or would it be?
Only Harriet and George know.