Tuesday, October 04, 2005

The President's Woman






I'm sitting her considering the President's nominee to the Supreme Court and finding I have very little to consider. Oh there's plenty of commentary on Harriet Miers, but we don't really know much about her, which is sort of the problem.

I can understand how some of the people on my side of the fence are upset at the President's decision. But some of their commentary has strayed into the odd. Take
this post by Jonah Goldberg over at National Review Online.
Miers may turn out to be a great justice. But she's never been a judge, never written seriously on constitutional issues, never been a litigator on such issues etc etc. But if you want to make the case that none of this matters, that's your perogative. All I ask is that you honestly address the question of whether you would have the same reaction if Hillary Clinton nominated her longtime personal lawyer under similar circumstances.
This is an odd argument because it takes a known LIAR and DICTATOR and compares her with the President, someone I, and I assume Mr. Goldberg, know to be a good man. Queen Hillary if she ever has the opportunity to nominate anybody should be opposed with everything we have because we know what kind of person she is. President Bush, on the other hand, has earned a little forbearance on our part.

The problem with Miers is as Rush
pointed out yesterday. The President could have nominated a strong Constitutionalist and shown this nation's Liberals where they stand with this President and with the American people.
There was an opportunity here to show strength and confidence, and I don't think this is it. There are plenty of known quantities out there who would be superb for the court. This is a nominee that we don't know anything about, a nominee purposely chosen in one context, we don't know anything about her. It makes her less of a target but it also does not show a position of strength.
So for that reason it's hard to get excited over Ms. Miers. She may very well turn out to be a great candidate and a great justice, but this was our chance to slam the liberals and we aren't taking it.

Still I'm hesitant to go to far, simply because the President may have a higher priority than slamming the liberals. And that is protecting our country. While Ms. Miers doesn't have a lot of experience in constitutional law, she has been working along President Bush for several years now. She knows that we are at war. And the President evidently believes that she will put the safety of the American people first in her deliberations.

Consider
this commentary by Hugh Hewitt.
Consider that none of the Justices, not even the new Chief, has seen the battlefield in the GWOT from the perspective or with the depth of knowledge as has the soon to be Justice Miers. The Counsel to the President has seen it all, and knows what the President knows, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Joint Chiefs and the Attorney General.

I suspect that the President thinks first and foremost about the GWOT each morning, and that this choice for SCOTUS brings to that bench another Article II inclined justice with the sort of experience that no one inside the Court will have.
There is a lot of legal ramifications still to be decided in the War on Terror. For the most part, the SCOTUS has sided with the safety of the American People over the ACLU. But President Bush may want an added measure of security in facing this situation. And if that is the reason for this selection, I'm not sure I can find it in myself to oppose Ms. Miers.

No comments: