SO WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT HARRIET MIERS SO FAR?

I'm sure everyone is scurrying to find what can be found on Bush nominating his old friend and personal attorney Harriet Miers to the Sandra Day O'Connor seat on the Supreme Court. Meanwhile there isn't much of a substantive record. We know she contributes regularly to campaigns for right-wing Repugs and that she donated a grand each to Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX), to Al Gore's 1988 presidential run and to the DNC. And we know Harry Reid supposedly likes her. (I wish he liked someone enough to recommend a candidate to oppose his Republican friend in their home state.) And speaking of "opposition" Senators, we also know that the Senate's most right-wing Democrat, even more right-wing than Lieberman (though not corrupt and hypocritical like Lieberman), Ben Nelson of Nebraska, thinks she's swell. Referring to Bush, he said "It appears the President has made a sound choice in Harriet Miers. From every indication it seems that she has the qualifications and experience to serve on the Supreme Court. Based on her background and experience, if confirmed, she would undoubtedly bring a new perspective and balance to the Court."

An ex-"boyfriend" of the 60 year old Miers, Nathan Hecht, has popped up to say that our next Supreme Court justice belongs to a fundamentalist church in Dallas and has views on abortion that will tickle evangelicals pink. She's also donated money to an anti-abortion organization, though not one that advocates bombing women's clinics and killing doctors. (Hey, with BushCo you never know!) But despite her former beau's prognosis, the extreme Right doesn't seem all that overjoyed so far. Limbaugh was borderline rude, in his obsequious way, to Darth Cheney in an interview about the nomination today. It's pointless to reprint Cheney's bullshit answers but here are a couple of Rush's questions (he didn't seem particularly hopped up on drugs):

-"There's a lot of concern out there among the President's supporters that her judicial philosophy is unknown because obviously she has not been a judge. Do you know what her judicial philosophy is? And how can the public be convinced, the President's supporters be convinced that it parallels the philosophy of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas as the President had said during campaigns was his objective?"

-"The early line of criticism right now is focusing on the fact -- the cronyism, that she is simply a crony, that Bush is using this opportunity to reward a loyal supporter of his."

Pat Buchanan was less circumspect than Limbaugh. He seems depressed. "Handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalism, George W. Bush passed over a dozen of the finest jurists of his day — to name his personal lawyer…. What is depressing here is not what the nomination tells us of her, but what it tells us of the president who appointed her. For in selecting her, Bush capitulated to the diversity-mongers, used a critical Supreme Court seat to reward a crony, and revealed that he lacks the desire to engage the Senate in fierce combat to carry out his now-suspect commitment to remake the court in the image of Scalia and Thomas. In picking her, Bush ran from a fight. The conservative movement has been had — and not for the first time by a president by the name of Bush."



The Wrong-Wing Blogosphere is having a tizzy fit. They seem hoppin' mad about because Bush didn't pick one of the proven neanderthals who DOES favor bombing abortion clinics. Evan a relatively establishment wrong-winger like David Frum, writing on the NATIONAL REVIEW website, seemed to be bemused by Miers' assertion that Bush "was the most brilliant man she had ever met" and that that kind of loyalty is no reason to give her a lifetime position on the Supreme Court. Referring to Bush's sinking poll ratings and GOP disarray on Capitol Hill, Frum writes that right now "no time for the president to indulge his loyalty to his friends." He was far more gentle than the enraged partisan loons posting on Confirm Them, a group set up to support what they hoped to be Bush's Far-Wrong Court picks. Here's a sampling of the postings:

-"A betrayal... pathetic cronyism."
-"Looks like BUSH was the ULTIMATE Stealth Candidate."
-“This is a profoundly disappointing nomination, a missed opportunity, and an abdication of responsibility to make sound, well qualified nominations.”
-"the worst kind of squalid cronyism. Abe Fortas in a dress."
-"This is disgusting. To choose someone with absolutely no credentials at all is just moronic. I can't stand this. What a total waste! CRONYISM! CRONYISM! CRONYISM! CRONYISM! CRONYISM!"
-"this is a disgrace. Imagine what would we would be saying had Kerry won and he nominated his PERSONAL lawyer??? we would go nuts. We must oppose."
-"Let's press Frist and other Republican senators to filibuster Harriet Miers. No cronies on the Supreme Court!"
-"The choice confirms the longstanding impression that George W. Bush is, by inclination, comfortable only within his self-selected “club” of people who, it so happens, think he is the club’s natural leader. This White House has long been arrogant and insular, and long criticized for it, and now the habit has become so ingrained that all that is left in Bush’s comfort zone is for him to play with within his own ever-narrowing circle. And really, what this looks like is sheer petulance. It’s as if Bush is saying: 'What do you mean I can’t appoint my little buddy Alberto? Who are you to question me; after all, I made Alberto, so of course I know what I’m talking about when I say he’s just super-duper. Okay, well, I’ll show you: If I can’t have Alberto, just TRY to stop me from appointing the lady who first INTRODUCED me to Alberto. This is my White House and my nomination and I’ll show you who’s boss.'”
-"There is profound disappointment today on the right. Harriet Miers was rumored as the next pick for the Supreme Court, but many people laughed off the suggestion. Some of those who were laughing are now crying. Still others are abandoning hope. Said one correspondent, 'This Presidency is adrift.' From what we have seen lately, we tend to agree."

Tom Goldstein, at SCOTUSblog, goes way out on a limb and actually predicts that Miers will not be confirmed. My guess is that he's as off-base as usual-- a reliable contrary indicator:

"The President's nomination creates a very interesting political dynamic - one that places the nomination in peril. The nomination obviously will be vigorously supported by groups created for the purpose of pressing the President's nominees, and vigorously opposed by groups on the other side. But within the conservative wing of the Republican party, there is thus far (very early in the process) only great disappointment, not enthusiasm. They would prefer Miers to be rejected in the hope - misguided, I think - that the President would then nominate, for example, Janice Rogers Brown. Moderate Republicans have no substantial incentive to support Miers, and the President seems to have somewhat less capital to invest here. On the Democratic side, there will be inevitable - perhaps knee-jerk - opposition. Nor does Miers have a built in 'fan base' of people in Washington, in contrast to the people (Democratic and Republican) who knew and respected John Roberts. Even if Democrats aren't truly gravely concerned, they will see this as an opportunity to damage the President. The themes of the opposition will be cronyism and inexperience. Democratic questioning at the hearings will be an onslaught of questions about federal constitutional law that Miers in all likelihood won't want to, or won't be able to (because her jobs haven't called on her to study the issues), answer. I have no view on whether she should be confirmed (it's simply too early to say), but will go out on a limb and predict that she will be rejected by the Senate. In my view, Justice O'Connor will still be sitting on the Court on January 1, 2006."