The Early Take On The Miers Nomination
President Bush's nomination of WH Counsel Harriet Miers to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has received some mixed reaction from the blogosphere. Here's a brief glimpse of the early takes:
Conservative reaction is not uniform.
NRO's Bench Memos has a range of conservative reaction, some supportive some cautious.
Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit looks at the mixed conservative reaction to the nomination, adding his take:
Perhaps they'll change my mind, but so far I'm underwhelmed.
Captain's Quarters is confused:
Not only does Harriet Miers not look like the best candidate for the job, she doesn't even look like the best female candidate for the job. If judicial experience is a liability, why not Maureen Mahoney, who is younger, has argued cases at the Supreme Court, and worked within the Deputy Solicitor's Office after clerking for William Rehnquist? Better yet, why not nominate J. Michael Luttig or Michael McConnell, with their brilliant and scholarly approaches to the law and undeniable qualifications through years of judicial experience? Why not Edith Hollan Jones, if Bush wanted to avoid the confrontation that Janice Rogers Brown would have created?Miers may make a great stealth candidate, but right now she looks more like a political ploy. Color me disappointed in the first blush.
Powerline is more down:
I was hoping that, because this is Bush's second term, he would thumb his nose at the diversity-mongers and appoint the best candidate. He thumbed his nose all right, but at conservatives.
But Hugh Hewitt has a more supportive take:
Harriet Miers isn't a Justice Souter pick, so don't be silly. It is a solid, B+ pick. The first President Bush didn't know David Souter, but trusted Chief of Staff Sunnunu and Senator Rudman. The first President Bush got burned badly because he trusted the enthusiams of others.The second President Bush knows Harriet Miers, and knows her well.
More Hewitt:
The president is a poker player in a long game. He's decided to take a sure win with a good sized pot. I trust him. So should his supporters.
Red State dives into Mier's history via the Federal Election Commission and finds past contributions from her to both Republicans and Democrats – including a $1,000 contribution to Al Gore's 1988 presidential campaign. Red State:
Mr. President, you've got some explaining to do. And please remember - we've been defending you these five years because of this moment.
So far, the left appears more unified in its opposition:
The thread on DailyKos is urging Democrats to fight the nomination. There are an awful lot of uses of the word "cronyism" in making the arguments.
At MyDD, Scott Shields writes:
"I'm supportive of the idea that the President deserves a lot of leeway to pick Supreme Court nominees. But this pick -- no matter what Miers' ideology -- seems to be the most egregious example of Bush cronyism we've seen so far.
Jack Balkin cross-posts on the TPM Café:
Choosing a stealth candidate is a sign that the President wants to avoid a fight, either because he is in a relatively weak political position, because he fears that his supporters disagree among themselves, or because he would rather expend his energies and influence elsewhere. All three of these seem to be the case right now.