Monday, October 10, 2005

John Fund Turns On Miers

John Fund changes his mind about Harriet Miers in a big way. He first took a wait-and-see approach, but after interviewing "dozens of her friends and colleagues" he says

I came away convinced that questions about Ms. Miers should be raised now--and loudly--because she has spent her entire life avoiding giving a clear picture of herself. "She is unrevealing to the point that it's an obsession," says one of her close colleagues at her law firm.
Fund then recites a litany of assurances just like those we're hearing now for Miers originally given in support of Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Conner, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. Read the whole thing. It's extremely important.

UPDATE: Paul Mirengoff disagrees:

In the case of Harriet Miers, though, we are not even talking about someone in the O'Connor mold--we are talking about someone who might be another O'Connor but is just as likely to vote with Scalia in the vast majority of big cases. In this situation, it seems imprudent to blow up the confirmation process---and possibly the Bush presidency and the Republican party--to block her nomination. Thus, conservative senators should be prepared, barring new and damning information, to vote in favor of Miers.
But earlier in his piece Mirengoff cut to the heart of the criticisms of the Miers nomination:

In any case, conservatives justifiably feel disappointed that they should have to rely solely on the president's legal and psychological acumen as they try to become comfortable with his nominee. There were at least two dozen candidates, including women, African-Americans, and Hispanics, whose conservative bona fides would have been apparent to the naked eye. Bush's rejection of these candidates in favor of Miers feels like cronyism or political weakness.
That's exactly right. Bush went to the mat for a dozen(?) Federal appeals court nominees who were proven strict constructionists. When it comes to the most important judicial nominations of all why won't he do the same? I haven't yet heard a satisfactory answer, and I do think this issue is worth blowing up the Republican Party.

That would be the same party that's forgotten what small government means. The same party that wasted political capital creating a massive new Federal entitlement when they should have been fixing the old ones. The same party that forgot about term limits and non-partisan redistricting as soon as they were comfortably ensconced as the majority. The same party that restricted political speech with another campaign finance reform bill. The same president who signed that bill into law after saying it was unconstitutional during his campaign. The same president who's done little but pander on illegal immigration.

And we were supposed to grit our teeth and bear the foolishness because it was all leading up to this: The opportunity (again) to replace 2-4 Supreme Court justices and change the direction of the court for a generation. Sorry, but I'm finished with forbearance. Time to pay the bill.

No comments: