George Will Is No Fan of Harriet Miers

George Will lays out the conservative argument against Harriet Miers in a piece on Townhall.com:

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's ``argument'' for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

And why doesn't Will think Bush should automatically be trusted?

In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to insure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ``I agree.'' Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ``I do.''

Many conservatives will never forgive the president for signing McCain-Feingold, a clear restriction on free political speech, thought unconstitutional by many on the right. Many thought the president signed it thinking that it would surely be struck down by the courts, but that didn't happen, and now we're stuck with it. Bush could have put a stake in the heart of this thing right from the beginning, but punted instead and now we have 529's and all kinds of other bizarre campaign financing rules. Instead of taking money out of politics, it just rearranged it.

Although Miers' may be a very competent lawyer and a dedicated Christian, was she really the best candidate available for the job? I doubt it, as does Will:

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers' nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers' name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

I'm afraid that the president, in order to avoid a fight, has bought into the idea that certain seats require certain types of candidates. In other words, you have to replace Sandra Day O'Connor with another woman (although a woman was not the first choice for that seat). And for those who thought it imperative that a woman replace O'Connor on the bench, Byron York at The Corner points to an interesting Gallup poll question:

"George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. If Bush had NOT nominated a woman, would that have bothered you, or not?" Yes, would have bothered, 18 percent; no, would not have bothered, 82 percent.

And instead of choosing someone with solid conservative qualifications who might have stirred up fierce resistance from the usual suspects, Bush has again promoted the notion that a "stealth" candidate is better than one with a paper trail. The problem is, conservatives have been burned by stealth candidates before the they're tired of have to put blind trust in their leadership.

There will likely be opposition from the left due to Miers' religious and apparent anti-abortion views, and now she may also be receiving opposition from the right due to a lack of clear conservative credentials, and the disappointment that many conservatives feel that none of the conservative judicial "stars" were chosen. A lot of folks were also hoping for a filibuster fight which would have possibly invoked the nuclear option once and for all, but it now looks like that fight will have to be put off for the nominee.

The question now is will that next nominee be replacing a current justice, or Miers?