More thoughts on Miers
John Hinderaker of Power Line comes to the conclusion that I am leaning toward on Miers:
I don't think Miers was one of the best nominees Bush had available, but no one asked my opinion (or Will's). The bottom line is, the President gets to appoint Supreme Court justices. Miers is easily--very easily, in my opinion--within the range of qualified nominees that it would be improper for the Senate to reject. I think her qualifications are better, for example, than Ruth Ginsburg's were. I think it would be very foolish for Republicans to start campaigning for Senators to refuse Miers confirmation, on the theory that we would then get someone better. If Bush gets another nomination, we probably will get someone about whom I am more enthusiastic, but in the meantime, Miers is the President's nominee and she ought to be confirmed.It is an interesting question on what the role of the Senate Confirmation should be. Some think that it is the role of the Senators to be a reletively equal partner in picking the Supreme Court Judges with a definate interest in assuring that their views of the most qualified and ideologically favorable (to each Senator's ideology) candidates get the job. Others lean toward a notion that the Senate's real job here is to assure that the minimum qualifications are met, and as long as that happens, they should defer to the President's choice. I certainly lean toward the second line of reasoning. Historically, so have most Republicans, the confirmation of Ginsburg being exhibit A on that. Democrats have leaned more toward the first interpretation than Republicans do, although they have historically given a lot of deference to the President in this regard. The Roberts confirmation was of course a big shift toward the Senators as equal partners philosophy. It is interesting then to observe the response to Miers throughout the conservative chattering heads. I think it fair to say that a fair amount of hipocracy is being displayed on this issue. Of course it is a seperate issue entirely between acknowledging that a President has a right to choose the Supreme Court Justices and agreeing with that decision. It is certainly allowable for a disgusted Republican to lower or cease supporting the party over this nomination. It is certainly allowable criticize the choice, and explain why X nominee would have been better. I am still a bit up in the air about how much I personally agree with the Miers nomination. I am leaning toward not ideal, but acceptable and not worth getting to worked up over.