REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The Miers Blunder
Walking the nominee into a political crossfire.
Although skeptical from the start, we've restrained our criticism of the Harriet Miers nomination because we've long believed that Presidents of either party deserve substantial deference on their Supreme Court picks. Yet it now seems clear--even well before her Senate hearings--that this selection has become a political blunder of the first order.
Especially in the wake of his success with John Roberts, President Bush had a rare opportunity to fulfill his campaign pledge to change the Court by nominating someone in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In the process, he would have rallied his most fervent supporters and helped to educate the country about proper Constitutional interpretation. Instead, he picked a woman who was his personal and White House counsel, and who was unknown to nearly everyone outside the White House and his Texas circle.
After three weeks of spin and reporting, we still don't know much more about what Ms. Miers thinks of the Constitution. What we have learned is that the White House has presented her to the country, and thrown her into the buzz saw that is the U.S. Senate, without either proper preparation or vetting. The result has been a political melee that is hurting not just Ms. Miers, who deserves better. It is also damaging the White House and its prospects for a successful second term.
Instead of a fight over judicial philosophy, we're having a fight over one woman's credentials and background. Instead of debating the Kelo decision's evisceration of private property rights, we are destined to learn everything we never wanted to know about the Texas Lottery Commission. (See John Fund's column today.)
Instead of dividing Red State Democrats from Senate liberals, the nomination is dividing Republicans. Pat Robertson is threatening retribution not against moderate Democrats but against GOP conservatives who dare to oppose Ms. Miers. Chuck Schumer couldn't have written a better script.
Regarding Ms. Miers's qualifications, we aren't among those who think an Ivy League pedigree or judgeship is a prerequisite for a Supreme Court seat. But the process of getting to know Ms. Miers has been the opposite of reassuring. Her courtesy calls on Senators have gone so poorly that the White House may stop them altogether.
And on Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee took the extraordinary step of asking her for what amounts to "do-over" on a standard questionnaire about her judicial philosophy. The impression has been created, fairly or not, that Ms. Miers is simply not able to discuss the Constitutional controversies that have animated American political debate for two generations.
We sympathize with Ms. Miers, who is an accomplished woman with many admirable qualities. The questionnaire fiasco is as much the fault of the White House, which is supposed to have several lawyers review these things. And more than one of our own lawyer friends have told us that even they would have a difficult time cramming for Senate hearings in four short weeks.
But this is another way of saying that the mistake here was that of the President and his advisers, who badly misjudged the political environment into which they have thrown their nominee. In earlier and less polarized times, someone without broad Constitutional experience might have avoided this trouble. But after decades of Republican anger over judicial activism, and 20 years of disappointing GOP Court selections, a nominee who was a blank slate was bound to get pounded. Mr. Bush has set her up to be hit by a withering political crossfire.
Senate Republicans now find themselves caught between their loyalty to the President and their entirely legitimate concerns about Ms. Miers's philosophy and qualifications. For their part, Democrats have so far largely been content to watch their opposition squirm and shout. But they will certainly play the opportunists, jumping on any opening on ethics or ideology to defeat her and embarrass the President.
The liberal base may even demand it, given that one of the White House's private selling points to religious conservatives has been that she is both an evangelical and is personally opposed to abortion rights. (Hint: She'd vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.) These assurances, if that's what they were, may turn out to have been doubly counterproductive, given that they also undercut Republican claims to believe in process- rather than results-oriented jurisprudence.
Perhaps Ms. Miers will prove to be such a sterling Senate witness that she can still win confirmation. But so far the lesson we draw from this nomination is this: Bad things happen when a President decides that "diversity," personal loyalty and stealth are more important credentials for the Supreme Court than knowledge of the Constitution and battle-hardened experience fighting the judicial wars of the past 30 years.
