Thursday, October 20, 2005

At least it'll be entertaining

The whole Harriet Miers nomination process seems sure to be much more interesting and lively than the Roberts nomination. In fact, it already has been. Controversy abounds.

A plethora of links: Apparently, two of Miers's close friends actually said they thought she would overturn Roe v. Wade if given the chance.

In 1989, Miers backed an amendment to the Constitution banning abortion. Will it boost conservative support?

There was apparently some odd miscommunication between Miers and Arlen Specter.

Here's a long analysis from Marvin Olasky from a week or two ago. It's comforting and important reading. But it also includes this warning: "If President Bush and supporters of the Miers nomination are wrong, the Supreme Court won't change but the Republican Party will, as millions of conservatives see GOP rule as shameful and look elsewhere for leadership."

Armstrong Williams says claims that Miers isn't qualified are a joke. Horace Cooper also defends her from vicious attacks.

David Limbaugh again calls for critics to distinguish between 1) wishing the president would choose someone else; and 2) actually arguing that the Senate should reject Miers. Whether or not Miers is the kind of judge I want, I think she must be confirmed under the Constitution. As Limbaugh claims, "These nominations are a matter of the president's prerogative and...the Senate must confirm unless the nominee is unqualified or of unfit character."

Michael Reagan has something similar.

Plus, more from Marvin Olasky. He explains the battle on Miers between conservatives:
In one set of trenches, machine guns blazing away, are National Review, The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, conservative columnists led by Michelle Malkin, anonymous Judiciary Committee staff members and many constitutional law theorists. In the opposite trenches sit evangelical leaders such as Chuck Colson, James Dobson and Jay Sekulow, bloggers led by Hugh Hewitt, White House staff members, law professors Ken Starr and Lino Graglia, and many lawyers in private practice.

From ScrappleFace:
"The important thing is not whether she's an evangelical Christian, a brilliant attorney, a trusted adviser or a woman," said Mr. McClellan, testing out the new White House talking points. "Her primary qualification to serve as a Supreme Court justice is that she's from Texas. We conservatives all know what that means. The president is confident that she thinks like a Texan and will act like a Texan on the court."

The Miers nomination is looking shakier and shakier. At first I thought she'd be confirmed, but now it's totally up in the air. There are even hints that the nomination may be withdrawn. But all we know for sure is that it will be fun to watch this process play out.

Earlier posts on Miers here and here. Plus, what's the debate over judicial philosophy about?

Creative Commons License