Patrick Ruffini is trying to reassure me (and others) about SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers. Of particular comfort is this passage:
But, as usual, quite possibly the most important perspective comes from Hugh Hewitt, who posits that Miers would be particularly strong in the area of national security jurisprudence. Having been "present at the creation" in the war on terror, not cooped up in isolated Circuit Court chambers or rarefied law school classrooms, a Justice Miers would be unlikely to let Jose Padilla roam the streets, or open up the gates of Gitmo. Folks – that's at least as important as the social issues.
The national security issues are, for me, much more important than the social issues.
I think you have reason to be reassured. After reading quite a bit about this last night, my impression is that Bush is appointing a political ally in order spread his party's control over the government (note: party, not ideology). In other words, they still see their reign as long and are making plans to place their party people in positions of power. Ideology is not as important as power, and I see this choice as an attempt to consolidate power.
So - it keeps the party people in place and that is what they want. She'll side with Bush when it is necessary, and with whomever succeeds Bush. As long as that person is a Republican.
Just my two cents. Have a good day.
Here is what I think. I too am nervous about the pick. I think she has the potential to be Justice Souter all over again. But here is why I am cautiously optimistic. The same "people" that picked Ms. Miers also had the wisdom to confront John Kerry's war record when the average political advisor would have advised against it. The same people never allowed Bush to admit mistakes during his first term in office because they knew it would make him look weak, and would only provide ammo for his critics. The Bush people are political masterminds. They see 10 steps ahead of everyone else. When you combine that with the fact that the President has know her for almost 20 yrs...I am slightly optimisitc.
How socially liberal can she be if she is a biblical literalist (which is what I heard)?
Media perspective was interesting. Keith Oberman had a guy on - they both concluded with W was a moderate. I then flipped to Fox News - their expert told O'Reilly that Harriet was too conservative to be confirmed. At the very least, Bush has'm guessing.
I don't really see what all the hand-wringing is about, she is a Bush loyalist and cut from the same cloth as the rest of the cronies. What can you guys possibly be upset about? She's an evangelical christian, she supports all the cool fundamentalist ideas, and has zero judicial knowledge as well as being a huge pro-corporate kinda gal. Heck if I was a Republican, I'd be happy.
All the hand wringing, wailing, and nashing of teeth just makes me feel as if all the protesting is manufactured to make it look like Dubya is bending to the Democratic Senators to get them off of his back.