The Washington Post is reporting that President Bush has nominated his White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court.
Once again, President Bush has reached deep into his loyal inner circle for another lofty pick or nomination.
Glen Reynolds is underwhelmed. From all that I’ve been able to read and discover thus far, so am I.
As I noted here, the Dems are going to reject whomever President Bush would have nominated — even if it’s just the expected knee-jerk opposition that they have for everything President Bush does. But with Miers nomination, they will have plenty of legitimate complaints.
Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog thinks that chief amongst them will be:
The themes of the opposition will be cronyism and inexperience. Democratic questioning at the hearings will be an onslaught of questions about federal constitutional law that Miers in all likelihood won’t want to, or won’t be able to (because her jobs haven’t called on her to study the issues), answer.
The GayPatriot thinks that the Dems will try to “out” her as a Lesbian (because she is not married and does not have any children, she must be gay).
Tom Goldstein concludes:
I have no view on whether she should be confirmed (it’s simply too early to say), but will go out on a limb and predict that she will be rejected by the Senate. In my view, Justice O’Connor will still be sitting on the Court on January 1, 2006.
I think ultimately this could be a good thing, as it could lead to the nomination of a better-qualified candidate. However, President Bush will be damaged for having made the (failed) nomination to begin with.
One thing about Miers, Bush knows exactly where she stands. Unlike all the other canidates, there has been no restriction on asking Miers how she would rule on the issues. I consider this a plus.
Left by 2 on October 3rd, 2005 at 11:17 am