Glenn Reynolds Defines the Objections to Miers

Glenn Reynolds (the Instapundit, one of the 800 pound gorillas in the blogosphere), has pretty accurately defined the angst on both sides of the aisle regarding the Miers' nomination in an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal:

Nonetheless, after the John Roberts nomination, people on both the left and right had high expectations for the next nominee, and President Bush has managed to dash those. Ms. Miers, while possessed of a respectable résumé, is not the kind of star that people expected. But the most serious problem with her can be found in the most recent line on her résumé, the one that reads "White House counsel." The path from the counsel's office to the Supreme Court is not well-trodden, and for good reason.

Despite charges of cronyism, Ms. Miers is not simply the president's crony, but his lawyer -- formerly his personal attorney, and now his presidential attorney. This has already given rise to paranoid theories from the left to the effect that Mr. Bush is trying to protect himself from prosecution growing out of the Plame affair or the Iraq war. These theories are unlikely, not least because Ms. Miers's current position would probably disqualify her from hearing precisely those kinds of cases. And even if she were not disqualified, there might be doubts about her objectivity that would undermine the court's reputation.

But that's only the half the trouble. The tendency in recent years to nominate judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court has led to a certain amount of politicking and positioning by appellate judges who think they have a shot. That's bad, but surely it would be far worse if future White House counsels started letting hopes of a court nomination distort advice they offer the president.

Glenn's a law professor, so he knows a thing or two about what he's talking about. Glenn believes Miers was a poor choice, and I have to agree.

And then there's this from USA Today regarding Miers' meeting with Chuckie Schumer:

"I didn't learn answers to so many important questions," said Schumer, who described Miers as much less informative than Chief Justice John Roberts was during similar meetings after Roberts' nomination to the high court in July. "On many, she wouldn't give answers, and on many others, she deferred, saying, 'I need to sort of bone up on this a little more.' "

This could get embarrassing.

Technorati tags: Harriet Miers; Miers; SCOTUS