Miers: I'll Trust Cautiously

I had some other names in my head that would have made me happier, but is Harriet Miers the disaster some conservatives are calling her?

Out of cautious optimism, I'm going to reject for the moment Michelle Malkin's concerns about cronyism. To me, the word means putting an incompetent or unsuited friend in a position of authority. All we've established so far is that Miers is a friend. It's a big jump to crony.

Of overriding concern to me is whether the nominee is conservative or liberal in applying the Constitution. Then, I'd like to know something about how they'd go on life-related issues. So it's clear that a place to turn for counsel is the American Center for Law and Justice. There, Jay Sekulow says,

“At a time when the high court is facing some of the most critical issues of the day – including a number of cases dealing directly with abortion and life issues – the person who replaces Justice O’Connor is critical. Harriet Miers is an excellent choice with an extraordinary record of service in the legal community and is certain to approach her work on the high court with a firm commitment to follow the Constitution and the rule of law. I have been privileged to work with her in her capacity as White House counsel. She is bright, thoughtful, and a consummate professional and I enthusiastically endorse her nomination.”

I also want the opinion of someone who has worked in the White House Council's office under a conservative Republican, so I turned to Hugh Hewitt, who said:

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. ... I suspect that the President thinks first and foremost about the GWOT each morning, and that this choice for SCOTUS brings to that bench another Article II inclined justice with the sort of experience that no one inside the Court will have.

I also suspect that Miers appointment has a lot to do with the bloodthirstiness of the Dems. They've made it clear that this is the appointment they want to fight over. Bush may have been influenced by the fact that Miers has no judicial decisions in her baggage. But I'm concerned that she has written a ton of memos, and the Dems will want to see them all.

The Bush White House was tight with Roberts' White House counsel memos, and pulled that off because there were tens of thousands of other memos for the Dems to chew on. It'll be tough keeping all of Miers' work for the last five years under wraps -- and that could end up being a very real, and very large, threat to her confirmation.