As with pretty much everyone on the center-right, my initial reaction to the Miers appointment was anger, disbelief, and opposition. I feared, and many feared, that Miers was another Souter — and without the credentials to match. But I decided to do some research on Miers before I vented in my blog. After looking at the evidence, I came to two conclusions: 1) she's qualified; 2) she's very conservative.
The pick of Miers was very unexpected: Why Miers? But in retrospect it's not very mysterious. Every president wants for SCOTUS justices that they agree with nearly 100% of the time. After many years of working together, W knows that Miers agrees with him on nearly everything. So when Senator Reid suggested that W think about putting Miers on the court, W had every reason to do so.
Did Reid hoodwink W? Not likely. W has known Miers for years and well; Reid knows her only slightly. The Dems effectively told W that they would confirm a justice that W knows is in near-total agreement with him. It's not surprising that he took it. From W's perspective, he had no reason to start a fight with the Senate when Democrats indicated they would surrender nearly 100% of what he wanted without a fight.
From W's perspective: you don't need the nuclear option when the other guy waves the white flag.
But is W right about Miers?
Souter, Kennedy, and O'Connor all had one thing in common — they were unknown personally to the president who appointed them. Reagan and Bush 41 trusted the judgment of conservative legal experts who thought they would be good conservatives — these experts turned out to be mistaken. W is not trusting conservative legal experts on this pick but his own personal work with Miers for a decade. W might be wrong — but Miers is here the anti-Souter, a candidate whose work the president knows quite thoroughly; something which contrasts with Souter, et al.
Not that W's judgment is untrustworthy. Rather, he shouldn't be trusted for the simple reason that there's no need. Miers is not an unknown. She has a long paper-trail, much longer than people realize. The evidence is quite clear and quite conservative. For example...
-snip-
(GrenfellHunt in President Aristotle, October 6, 2005)
To Read This Article Click Here
So, by your post, I could reason, that Miers has agreed to President Bush's full-on-court-press of OUR border/port issues? Correct?
I have been reading variations of this for days and it just doesn't pass the smell test. Bush is the PRESIDENT, and many people are going to be a little bashful about disagreeing with the PRESIDENT. I mean, I think somebody like Miers knows where her bread is buttered. Sorry, but "no sale" on this. Maybe Miers is just an amiable, brown-nosing "yes man" (woman).