Reluctantly, Opposing Miers

While I have been criticizing the elitist criticisms of Miers (and don't misunderstand me, not all criticism of her is elitist), I have been firmly on the fence as it comes to her nomination.

It has now been nearly a week since President Bush nominated her to the Supreme Court. Many pixels have been devoted to why she should be opposed and why she should be supported.

After much debate, I have chosen to oppose Miers, albeit reluctantly, for reasons that may be different from others.

There are three reasons for my opposition.

First, Miers is nobody's idea (perhaps even Bush's) of a first choice candidate. Even the defenders of Miers always appear to preface their defense with, "While there were others I would have preferred...." That isn't exactly a strong endorsement. Opponents of Miers could descend into all manner of criticism of her and of Bush for picking her, but when even your defenders are starting off the defense with, "Well, she ain't the best choice, but..." something is wrong.

At a minimum, one has to agree that there are good alternatives: Luttig, McConnell, Jones, etc. No Miers supporter will be shedding a lot of tears if her name gets yanked and McConnell put up there instead.

Second, I am very strongly opposed to derailing Miers on superficial credentials grounds. The entire "she's unqualified" line of criticism often falls into this category with people taking a distinctly un-conservative stance: "If she didn't go to Harvard/Yale/etc., didn't have prestigious clerkships, then she's no good for SCOTUS." On the other hand, with a candidate like Miers who has no strong track record one way or the other, it is important to look at the entirety of her achievement, where she came from, how far she got, and glean as much as possible from what little information is available.

What I have seen so far during this week is not encouraging on the "whole picture" front. There isn't one single "a-ha" that persuades me that Miers may be a bad pick; rather, it's the aggregation of a dozen little things that presents the picture that on the whole, this nominee may not be the true originalist justice we so desperately need.

For example, her donations to Democrats -- standing on its own, it's not enough. Comments by people who knew her during law firm days describing her as a good administrator, but with no firm legal philosophy on the "hot button" issues -- standing on its own, it's not enough. David Frum's comments about her are not enough standing on their own:

One former White House official familiar with both the counsel's office and Miers is more blunt.

"'She failed in Card's office for two reasons,' the official says. 'First, because she can't make a decision, and second, because she can't delegate, she can't let anything go. And having failed for those two reasons, they move her to be the counsel for the president, which requires exactly those two talents.'"

The Washington Post reports that as staff secretary she was notorious for personally correcting the punctuation in White House memos. This is sadly true - and it is also true that in 14 months of working with her on punctuation, I never heard her say anything substantive about any policy issue, with one exception.

John Yoo's reservations about her; Jim Lindgren of Volokh.com's thoughts on Miers re: Warren; and so on and so on.

Not one of these things is dispositive standing alone. However, when taken together, and then adding the fact that she has held no judicial post, no academic post, has no substantial writing on constitutional law, has no one willing to state on record that he/she spoke with Miers at length about such-and-such issue and Miers was great, etc. etc. does paint a negative picture of her on the whole. Counterbalancing those are positive comments from people who have known her at Locke, Liddell; and of course, the confidence of the President. This is important, but it fails ultimately to persuade me, primarly because Bush may be a social conservative at heart, rather than a devoted Originalist at heart.

Yes, she can overcome the perception with a brilliant performance in the confirmation hearings. But for now, it is a strike against her.

But the third reason for my opposing her may be the most important. This nomination has split the GOP ranks in a way I haven't seen any issue split the ranks. This nomination threatens to create a schism in the alliance between groups of conservatives that is the pillar of modern conservatism. Unity isn't everything, but it is something. When the defenders of Miers are lukewarm about her, and the whole picture of Miers (granted after only a week, but still) is not overwhelmingly positive, I must conclude that she probably is not worth damaging the conservative movement over.

Ultimately, this may be the best reason to oppose Miers and support someone else: a unity candidate. Not someone who will unify Republicans and Democrats, but someone who will unify the Republicans behind him/her. Again, I don't see the supporters of Miers, lukewarm to begin with, wanting to fall on their swords for her should her name be withdrawn.

(That may have been Rove's plan all along, of course. :-) To really unify the GOP behind the 'real' nominee, by throwing out Miers first, but I do doubt that.)

My mind is not made up fully; but after a week, I think it's time to take at least a tentative stand. And I choose unity of the conservative movement over this particular candidate, as she is known at this time.

-TS

Because You're Nobody Until Somebody Loves You

Or calls you a right-wing hitlerite fundamentalist jihadi who worships at the altar of Bushchimphitlerhalliburton and his Big Oil pals.

Hence, a blog. All the cool kids have one now!

Chances are, I probably won't have time to update this regularly. But when I do, I hope to talk a bit about politics, bit about business, bit about marketing, bit about the Web 2.0 initiatives, bit about Korean-American scene, bit about everything in other words. This is the classic no-goals, no-ambition, no-work blog.

Welcome.

-TS