Harriet Miers: The Blogroversy Begins

Certainly the blogosphere is agog, on both sides, with the appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). There is controversy on both sides of the aisle, ranging from mild bowel rumbling (Laura Ingraham is not particularly pleased) to more bowel rumbling. It was even suggested that President Bush nominated Miers at the behest of Senate Minority Leader (D, Nevada) Harry Reid.

At this early stage of the reaction phase, I have yet to see anyone absolutely apoplectic over the appointment of Miers -- though I suspect that is yet to come when certain camps discover and begin to voice evidence to indicate Miers is apparently an evangelical, has the temerity to attend church regularly and has (I'm not sure why there hasn't yet been a massive MainStream Media backlash over this) the support of President Bush to the extent that he said Miers "will strictly interpret our Constitution and laws. She will not legislate from the bench. I ask the Senate to review her qualifications thoroughly and fairly, and to vote on her nomination promptly."

Hugh Hewitt, an OG of the Blogosphere, wrote in his 10-03-05 0631 AM post:

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. The White House Counsel is an unknown to most SCOTUS observors, but not to the president, who has seen her at work for great lengths of years and in very different situations, including as an advisor in wartime. Leonard Leo is very happy with the choice, which ought to be enough for most conservatices.

As I wrote last night, Judges Luttig and McConnell are the most qualified nominees out there, but I think from the start that the president must have decided that this seat would be given to a woman, and it is very hard to argue that she is not the most qualified woman to be on the SCOTUS for the simple reason that she has been in the White House for many years.

It would appear to me, however, that though Miers can be seen to be a "B+" candidate according to quite possibly the finest mind extant in the Blogosphere, at this point, that's simply not enough. Why not?

When it's taken roughly 30 years to get to the place where there exists a chance to bring the good ship SCOTUS on the proper course (witness its recent ridiculous edict in Kelo v. City of New London , No. 04-108), I find myself once again disappointed in President Bush.

Where is the fight in President Bush? Where is his willingness to take the reins of power, rightfully given to him by the electorate, and demonstrate his ability to lead rather than placate? I don't want appeasement. I want my president to stand up and fight for whom he believes. Take the fight right back to the Dems, and get in some faces.

Unfortunately I realize that is not this president's nature, to my clear displeasure.

Of course, I reserve the right to hope that we could all the happily surprised. Maybe President Bush really is pulling the proverbial rabbit out of the hat. But after a track record of appearing to push his conservative values, in some very important circumstances, aside, I find the appointment of a "stealth candidate," on its face, mightily disturbing.

Heavy sigh.