Will shiv

George Will sure can twist a knife. Or so I thought when I re-read his Harriet Miers column today:

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

In virtually any future presidential exercise, it would seem incumbent to ask, "Why should we trust him?" In fact, if protestors' signs began quietly greeting him with this question everywhere he went, the lack of a good answer would do far more harm to the White House's tattered legitimacy than any raving moonbeamer screeching, "Impeach Now!"

Steve Clemons provides an overview of key Republican senators' initial positions on Miers.

In today's WSJ, John Cornyn has an op-ed that seems extremely dutiful, yet minimally enthusiastic and definitely uncompelling. While it mainly reads like a school board candidate endorsement, he takes pains to note Miers' most disturbing claim:

She aptly described her judicial philosophy on Monday when she said, "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts and our society." The courts, she continued, have "obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution."

I hope that senators keenly question her and just how deep her knowledge of the Founders' "true vision" is. Few suspect it to run deeply.

In the meantime, while Bush may have quieted some of the key ideologues --such as James Dobson -- with his pandering Rose Garden performance, I sense the groundwork being laid for a charmingly bizarre coalition of theocons and moderate to liberal Democrats.

In the meantime, so long as conservative opposition remains substantial, the White House will be forced to make more and more clear to its base just how much of a wingnut Bush thinks Miers is. That yields dividends for Democrats, who can use that to make more and more clear to the rest of America what Bush is up to. So far, however, Tony Perkins has had his "homosexual agenda" fears stoked, and they should be stoked higher.

If so, you see, and the theocons and Democrats participate in the defeat of this nominee, it will be the gravest of self-inflicted wounds for the former. Afterward, there is no way Bush could nominate a more explicitly firebreathing right-winger without setting that one up for defeat as well -- forcing him into a position to have to deal with Democrats to get a more explicitly moderate justice seated, to the country's relief.

If more than a handful of Republican senators oppose Miers, every Democrat in the Senate should join them -- in the expectation that even if they do for whatever reason find Miers palatable, the next nominee will be more so, while Democratic power in Congress will be solidified in the face of upcoming elections. This was something politically impossible with the Roberts nomination. With Miers, it now borders on the politically imperative.

Comments

[M. Douglas Wray]

If more than a handful of Republican Senators (what a mental image -that- is... feh TOOEY!) DO oppose Harriet Miers, I'll have a stroke from surprise.

Don't forget, theirs is the party of lockstep, loyalty and moral compassivity (or sumptin).

When it comes to a vote, those ole Borg implants will kick right in; and the Dems will shivel up and hide in the corner... just like always.

Of course, I could be wrong - come on Ken, Mark, prove me wrong.