The last thing any of us need is to have all the conservatives in the blogosphere and MSM to start endorsing Miers. That would surely raise a lot of leftist flags. Best to keep viewing her with suspicion or even disdain at this point so as not to fuffle moonbat feathers. If all goes well, they be plenty ruffled enough after she's appointed.

imnotparanoid - I like your thinking. They flip out whenever the opposing side has anything positive to say, so best to keep approval hush hush.

Of the couple dozen essays I've read on the topic both pro and con from both the left and the right, this one by Thomas Lifson in The American Thinker: http://tinyurl.com/du59l leads me to think that President Bush may have made a pair of brilliant moves here by bracketing the court with Roberts & Miers.

harriet has a blog

Seriously, is this the best in the whole country?
I think the left is having too much fun watching the wingers fight among themselves.

Even George Will thinks this stinks:
"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.

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections."

Ouch.

The best is the enemy of the good. Voltaire

I'm uncertain as to what to think. But Miers does seem more and more like a rare individual who could actually do the job a judge's really supposed to do: judge, period.

No tailoring rulings to fit a political master who appointed oneself; no taking into account political correctness or the popular public/msm opinion of the moment. Just judging based on evidence and written statutes and the Consitution.

That's what a judge should be; not a political crony/pawn nor a social activist and not bringing one's personal beliefs into play.

Too bad our national leader in Canada doesn't understand how to find a real judge. Or a real GG, for that matter, etc. etc.

Gosh, a whole bunch of anonymous people, none of whom consent to be named but miraculously representing an American spectrum as synthetically representative as a Coke commercial...agree with Bush. Isn't that miraculous?

Kate...take a break. The brainwashed are already sold, and the conscious are laughing hysterically. It's our job to parody grim faced right wing propaganda, not yours. Relax and enjoy the dog show.

Contrary to all the conservative pundits who are gnashing their teeth, I consider this an astute political move. With congressional elections in 2006, Bush would be foolhardy to expend political capital at this point. After the 2006 election, he will most likely have another opportunity and will be able to secure confirmation of a fire-breathing right-winger.

Anonymous? Yeah, well, I don't give out my phone number in bars, either, honey. You can call me Tony, or you can call me Phony, or you can call me Mr. Vitruvius, but you can't have my phone number.

You wanna advertise yourself, Balbulican, be my guest. Other than that, I'll respond to your responses to the issues being discussed by the disembodied voices herein. This is cyberspace, not meatspace, and we're lucky to have it.

Oh, and Texan, yes, the troika possibility is interesting too. He's got a rook and a knight on the queen, getting a bishop in too would be quite a gambit.

(Anybody want to guess who the Queen is?)

Gotcha, Tony.

Oh, by the way, just last night, I talked to 438,391 Americans, all Republicans, all previously deeply committed to Bush and his policies, who were appalled by his decision on Miers and were going to join the American Communist party. They all decided to remain anonymous, but really, that's how they felt.

Talk to anyone you want, Balbulican, I speak only for myself.

I think President Bush is fully aware of the danger involved in stacking the court with an excess of geniuses who don't actually know how the real world works. Never having been personally responsible for meeting a payroll is one of those things (not that it's a litmus test).

Given that the President has already elevated a genius to the Chief Justice rank, it seems to me that Miers may indeed be just the counterbalance he needs to help keep the court on the straight and narrow.

Everyone's yelling at him, "You can trust this guy." "You can trust that guy." You know who he can trust? Someone he's spent thousands of hours with over the last decades. Bush, Clinton, Regan, Carter, the man in the street, it doesn't matter: who can you trust?

By the way, have I ever mentioned that I'm not a card-carrying member of any political party. Not me, I'm just an insignificant citizen, trying to help keep government at bay. So far, although only the early results are in, it looks to me like Miers may be on my side.

The situation down here is that by a bit of political calculation, the Republican Party is doing a successful job of capturing the middle and displacing the political left. They are greatly helped by the fact that the Democratic Party is coming unglued due to the fact that their biggest cash cows are philosophically radical leftists living in the echo of the 60s. (So Democratic politicians have to sound like Abbie Hoffman or they don't satisfy the guys with the big bucks.)

So this is all great, right?

Regrettably, no. Because to move Democratic voters to the right, Republicans have to appeal to lefist sensibilities. And whose toes get stepped on? Real conservatives, of course.

Conservatives have worked 50 years to win the House, Senate, and Presidency. Now we want our values endorsed. We figure if not now, when? We don't care for a crafty war of brinksmanship.

If the strategy works, we will have a more moderate Republican Party and Democrats will become a minority party in the United States for the next 60 or 80 years. That's part good, except then real conservatives will not see the rewards we've earned. (Who cares if we win, only to have conservative Democratic values ratified?)

This is the dilemma and trade-off being discussed inside the Republican Party.

That's fair Greg. What do you think (and I ask honestly) about the notion that Miers may be a stealth move favouring commerce over statism?

What if (oh boy, here come the heresy charges) President Bush, five years in to a profoundly unique perspective, actually sees the United States of America as more important than any single party per se, even his own?

The argument can be made that that tends to happen to real people in that role.

Miers Briefed Bush on Bin Laden PDB

An article by Richard A. Serrano and Scott Gold observes that early in the Bush presidency “Miers assumed such an insider role that in 2001 it was she who handed Bush the crucial 'presidential daily briefing' hinting at terrorist plots against America just a month before the Sept. 11 attacks.”

It seems on everything I've seen on Miers, she is totally committed to the proper application of the rule of law. She has a business mind and has looked after a group of employees. Also, she's been the legal safety net around a two term president. It doesn't hurt either that she's a woman that will join a select membership dominated by men. Is there any real downside here? Does "judging" experience really count that much when compared against a person who has so much experience in the real world? I don't know precisely...but gut feel on that verdict so far goes to Miers.

Oh for heaven's sake, Steve, Miers was the White House thing-a-majig who was responsible for sanity checking all the documents that went to and from the President. Of course she was on the path of the presidential daily briefings. My understanding is that her responsibility was legal, not second-guessing "hints" of terrorist plots (at least, as the conspiracy theorists would have it).

I'm thinking she's as stuck on stupid as Bush is.

Mirror, mirror,
on the wall,
who's the stuckest,
of them all?

Whatchou talking about, Willis?

I feel the heat.

Conservatives Confront Bush Aides Anger Over Nomination of Miers Boils Over During Private Meetings

"The tenor of the two meetings suggested that Bush has yet to rally his own party behind Miers and underscores that he risks the biggest rupture with the Republican base of his presidency. While conservatives at times have assailed some Bush policy decisions, rarely have they been so openly distrustful of the president himself."

"She won't even make it as far as the confirmation hearings. Bush will shitcan her and find a nuttier nutcase to make the hatemongers for Jesus happy."

Unfortunately, Steve, the proclivities of the Washington Post are too well known to allow their arguments to effectively buttress your case. Selling advertising ink for a living does not necessarily elevate one to a position of wisdom relative to us common folk.

Big mouths on the left. Big mouths on the right. Don't look at me, I'm just one vote, just like you.

But it does seem to me that rather than investing all our effort in the local positions of the pieces on the board, important though they are, we should also pay attention to our strengths and weaknesses in our overall game position. This is our life. That's what the big-shots do; the last thing we common folk need to do is get waylaid by the pirates of the ink indentured to the service of the big-shots.

Think now. Why did Bush do this? Anyone who actually thinks he's stupid is an idiot. So it must be something else. Maybe that old maxim, to the effect that if you're pissing all the idealogues off you must be doing something right, applies to Bush in this case ;-) Well, one way or the other, in less than twenty years we'll know.

texan wrote: 'I consider this an astute political move'. are you kidding me? this is all that this nomination was. a political move. with the presidents sliding numbers over the past 8 months he picks a woman who happens to be in his inner circle. while the canadian sentinel writes that she's 'not a political crony', i have to wonder how conservatives are against legalizing marijuana when this guy is obviously high. NOT a political crony? she was his lawyer. i've got some inside intel suggesting that he is placing her on the supreme court to avoid being indicted on the corruption charges that will inevitably follow this presidents overdue departure. and Tony - dont boggart that whole dube. are you kidding me: bush choosing to better the united states? miers' judicial philosophy is unknown (not least because she lacks judicial (or litigious for that matter) experience), but we know that there are two points she will trot along with the republic propaganda: antiabortion and 'free enterprise'. lets not forget she's a millionaire, but i guess you have to be to be friends with george w. i mean (continuing with the narcotic theme of this post) blow isnt cheap right?

A question:

Should SCOTUS judges have previous bench experience? In Canada, I believe we've had judges in the SCC who came directly from academia. I don't know if we've had one from a business/political background. Anybody know?

Um, Smegma, have you gone off your meds again?

I think there are a lot of conservative Republicans spoiling for a fight. I think Tony makes some excellent points about this particular end run. And, until the committee questions her, I doubt we'll know much more than that.

I wonder whether the wish to bloody the Democrats is a greater cause for discontent than the actual nominee herself. It's also an open question as to whether or not the Republican Senators have the spine to aggressively fight for a strong conservative nominee. They certainly haven't shown much stomach for a scrap up to now. This may become the way of the future as far as SCOTUS is concerned, in order to avoid the 'Borking' of candidates.

Occam:

Canada's SC judges have come from the bench, law school academia and private legal practice. I am not aware of any coming from business and would doubt it (most lawyers who have chosen to go into business have done so because they don't want to practice law and don't keep current with the law). I think there have been some former politicians/AGs who have been appointed way back when, but not in a long while.

TB
Cerberus

Tony:

I don't see how anyone could be excited about this choice. Even if you do go along the line of 'I trust Bush's judgement', how can that be enough to get excited about as opposed to guarded acceptance? In any event, I don't think that is enough. Miers is fairly young and will have a significant impact on several generations of Americans: the position is more important to more people than Bush. His judgment is not enough. There is a review process, of course (which we sorely need), but as we saw with Roberts, you can avoid giving any kind of substantive answers. At least with Roberts there was unanimous consent on his abilities because of his public record. Not so Miers. If she resists answering questions like Roberts, then she really shouldn't be given the committee's recommendation. Not because of politics or ideology, or even because she does or doesn't have the skill set and intelligence, but because we just don't know whether she has the knowledge base and skill set to be one of the top judges.

TB
Cerberus

I'm fed up with all the elitist crap David Frum and others have flung into the fan on the Miers nomination. Frum reaches to the bottom of the cess pool, this morning, with this remark:

"Here's the tough truth, and it will become more and more important as the debate continues: There is scarcely a single knowledgeable legal conservative in Washington who supports this nomination."

To hell with the remarks of "knowledgeable" persons inside the Beltway. The Miers nomination was driven by GWB's anti-intellectual, populist orientation. Here's the message that Frum and the other right-wing geniuses are incapable of hearing: Let it be known that the US isn't ruled from the top down, but rather from the bottom up. (And, it ain't ruled by just the men, either.)

This is government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

If Frum can't handle populism, he's welcome to return to Canada, where you have government of the elitists, by the elitists, and for the elitists, and where the conservative intelligentsia hasn't yet figured out how to build a political base of popular support. He might as well take the rest of the right-wing D.C. brain trust with him, as all of them are non-essential to Red State Populism.

The OC wrote:

"I don't know if we've had (a SCC justice) from a business/political background."

There've been several so-called "business" justices over the years - Martland, Iaccobucci and Major come immediately to mind. It is difficult to fathom, but the SCC has, arguably, been somewhat pro-business in the last decade or so. Penance, perhaps?

I don't know if we've ever NOT had an SCC justice from a "political background", if by that you mean a participant in or friend/supporter/admirer of the government at the time. This was less of an issue before PET, the god who walked like a man, armed them with the "progressive" social engineers wet-dream in 1984. The SCC as well as the appellate courts of every province (federal appointments as well) have been utterly devoid of anything other than social "progressives" ever since. I have no doubt that I, and likely my children and grandchildren, will pass the mortal coil long before an Canadian appellate court sees the likes of a Scalia or Thomas.

In terms of the unfolding Miers brouhaha, it is indeed unfortunate that, in calling upon his base to "trust him" in this nomination, Bush is by necessary implication suggesting they not trust the dissenters, many of whom are, in my estimation as trustworthy as he. If there is some "political" capital Bush hopes to realize in this nomination, it had better be formidable to counter the fissures it's causing in a critical constituency, conservative court-watchers.

As to there being a paucity of "judgments" by which Miers can be measured, there is at least one: her judgment in accepting the nomination having spent a considerable chunk of her professional life in recent years scrutinizing the credentials of others being consider by Bush for judical appointments. In addition to being called upon to trust Bush when he states she was the most suitable candidate for the SCOTUS opening, we are also expected to trust that Miers herself thought that as well, else she (presumably) would have refused the nomination in favour of one of the many consensus "star" picks.

IMO, US conservatives have every right to be up in arms over this nomination.

Fair enough for the government, Texan. But, um, do you really want an "anti-intellectual" as one of the highest judges in the land? The whole point of the Supreme Court as a check on the government is that it is not populist. The Court is not "of the people, by the people, and for the people" or popular support, and was never intended to be. It is about intelligent legal analysis of complex issues and laws.

Someone who has great business smarts like a Bill Gates; or political savy like a Karl Rove; or popular appeal like a Reagan or Clinton or Schwartzenegger or, for that matter Britney Spears; or sports smarts like Michael Jordan; none of these people deserve to be on the bench. And if other top lawyers - not "intelligentia" - don't recognize your top lawyer skills and intelligence, that's a problem when you are being considered for the top legal job for the next 20 years or so.

Doncha think?

TB
Cerberus

Occam:

A quick bit of research: all but one of the current judges were formerly on a provincial court of appeal (Binnie was appointed directly from private practice but was very well known in the profession as a superior litigator and constitutional law expert); and, ever since it mattered (i.e. when the SCC became the final court of appeal and not the UK House of Lords), it seems they were only two examples of non-judges being appointed - former Chief Justices Cartwright and Taschereau.

TB
Cerberus

Ballsbulgin, on behalf of Karl Rove and the other directors of this elaborate conspiracy, may I say that your thoughts are leaking out rather too loudly? If we want to know what you think, we'll monitor you. In the meantime, I recommend that you upgrade to a heavier gauge of tinfoil to keeop the seepage umder control. And perhaps an extra layer of Depends, for much the same reason.

And now, back to the program: Of course I support Bush's wisdom in appointing this person whom I've never heard of and who will never mean squat to me!

... the ever insightful and polite ebt...

texans' wisdom continues: 'Miers nomination was driven by GWB's anti-intellectual, populist orientation...the US isn't ruled from the top down, but rather from the bottom up... This is government of the people, by the people, and for the people'

are you serious? bush is now a man of the people? i mean... who didnt used to own a major league baseball team, run two corporations (into the ground) and has assets topping 35$million? i guess john kerry was too much a member of that elite because he went to yale, right?

i guess john kerry was too much a member of that elite because he went to yale, right?

_______________

You're getting the picture. Look at the last three Demwit presidents (LBJ, the Peanut Farmer, and the Village Idiot from Arkansas). The Eastern Establishment is dead (except in Canada).

Western Canadians don't have enough population clout to swing much weight. That's why they have only two choices: suffer or separate.

ahaha seriously texan, you are hilarious. beyond losing an ear for sarcasm as you evolved (or were intelligently designed) as 'western man', you expect me to really believe that you think bush is not part of the eastern establishment? ahahah, you are too much. i mean if the only evidence i have is that his brother has no accent whatsoever and that bush was pretty much raised way down south in conneticut, i guess i could conclude that people often confuse retarded speech patterns for a pretty weak fake texas drawl.

Actually, Texan is pretty persuasive. And I don't say that because we both hail from the Lone Star State.

Bush's accent is not fake. Mine is almost identical because I grew up in Midland, Texas when George and Laura Bush did. Laura was at Lamar Junior High, the future president at Alamo, and I was at Austin Junior High. (At that time there were only 4 junior highs, and one high school.)

So he lived in Midland where class distinctions revolved around a very weak stratification. Some people were oil wildcatters who might win or lose all of their money on the next well, and many were people who worked for oil companies. When you grow up in a place like Midland, it leaves a powerful imprint.

Later, Bush ran for Congress out in west Texas and was very much in touch with west Texas people and west Texas perspectives.

It is true that George Bush was introduced to people with political influence and wealth, and those people came from many areas of the US, not just Texas. However he was our governor in Texas for 1 and a half terms, and you have to be pretty solidly integrated into Texas culture to do that.

We have our own elite in Texas (you can read James Michener's book about Texas if it interests you). One time the news media asked George Bush why he did not advertise the fact that he had gone to Yale. (It has now been established that his grades were better that Kerry's.) Bush joked, "In the part of the country I come from, if you say you went to Yale, people think you said you've been in jail."

In Texas, our own sort of cowboy elite groups have a regional, nostalgic and uniquely Texas cultural style. They can talk to Boston brahmins, but there's a gap between them that does not exist between ordinary Texans and prominent Texans.

Bush has a lot of friends who did not originate from some privileged background. His neighbors are now in Crawford, and it's a relief for him to be able to get back home.

Bush sure does confuse people when he does what he says he would. During both campaigns, he promised to appoint justices like Scalia and Thomas. Roberts is like Scalia -- and Miers is like Thomas. Those who are attacking Miers should (1) recongnize that almost identical criticisms could have been made of Thomas when he was nominated and (2) that Bush is keeping a campaign promise.

(For more, here's my most recent post on the nomination. Scroll down and you'll find more.

And for those complaining about anonymity, I put "Jim Miller" on this comment and on my site because that's my name.)