I had some original thoughts on President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, but now that I have time to blog on them I see all my thoughts have been taken by other bloggers. Since I can't come up with any original thoughts, would you settle for a couple unoriginal ones?
The conservative opinion on Miers is mostly negative. I share the opinion of many, including Todd Zywicki, that whatever virtues Harriet Miers has, there are many potential nominees who had these virtues in greater amounts than she. My own choice for this position would have been Michael McConnell, but the only thing that recommends him is his brilliance. But, judging from the praise the White House gives the "diversity" Miers brings to the court, McConnell is too white and too male to be considered. I have little doubt she's up to the job, but Bush clearly went with a second-stringer.
Why go this route? There is a characteristic to George W. Bush that is both a blessing and a curse. He seems to put a great deal of stake in being able to read the character of people. I suspect he's actually quite good at it. Bush's sense of loyalty and trust of "good people" generally works to his benefit. But it sometimes leads Bush astray, such as when he saw into Vladimir Putin's soul and saw he was a good man. It means a lot to Bush that someone is a "good guy" or a "good gal." I worry that Bush has looked into Harriet Miers's soul and seen that she is another Scalia, when in fact she is another O'Connor (who turned "why can't we all just get along" into a jurisprudential philosophy). I'd settle for a jerk who votes like Scalia, which is another way of saying I'd settle for another Scalia. Considering what is at stake and the importance of the judiciary to many conservatives, I think George W. Bush's supporters deserved more than a "trust me" when it came to this all important judicial pick.
Recent Comments