Unlike John Roberts before her, President Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, isn't seen as one of the top legal minds in the country. Nor is she known to be a proven conservative ideologue.
This time around, the right is perhaps more upset with Bush's selection than the left. So much so, in fact, that Democratic leaders like Sen. Harry Reid are offering tacit approval of Miers, while Republicans like Sen. Sam Brownback are publicly saying they need to know more about where she stands on the issues. If that doesn't signal a massive shift in thought since the nomination of John Roberts, I'm not sure what does.
But don't believe the hype. Miers is everything the right wants, they're just upset it came not with a bang but a whimper.
Brownback and the Republicans, as we know, aren't upset because they have the best interests of America in mind. They're upset because
this was supposed to be their moment. Bush, with sabre in hand and ultra-right nominee in tow, was supposed to lead his party to the top of the mountain, rallying the nation behind the flag of conservatism for generations to come.
The right didn't want someone who appeared to be a crony pick with little to no paper trail and potentially moderate views on such issues as gay rights. They wanted someone with a long, documented history of far-right views. They wanted a fire-breathing, abortion-hating, gay-bashing corporatist who rose to the nomination on the backs of the little people.
While the Bush administration is dumb, I'm not sure they're that dumb. Nominating such a firebrand would have surely triggered the rapid Democratic response. Reid wouldn't have been voicing support for the nominee, he would have been preparing for a filibuster, which he may have successfully achieved. If that had happened, Bush wouldn't have been able to nominate another extremist without fear of repercussion.
This way, Bush appears to have everything right where he wants it. Sure, some quarters of the right are up in arms, but they'll soon fall in line. Have we heard a peep of outrage from the likes of James Dobson? That we haven't speaks volumes about the pick. And the left? Having failed to unify on Roberts and already appearing to back Miers, the prospects of a coherent opposition are slim.
Reid's support, however, could be nothing more than a wise tactic intended to enrage the right and divide their caucus. A bold move, and one that when coupled with the right's already tepid reaction could result in diminished support for the pick. But even if Reid succeeds and Miers is turned away, I think we all agree her replacement could far more extreme. And there's the rub.
I don't trust Bush with a lot of things - foreign policy, disaster preparedness, the environment - but one thing I do trust him with is picking friends and ideologues for important offices. His choice of Miers for the Supreme Court is no different.
As I wrote when Roberts was up for confirmation, Bush isn't interested in choosing the best jurist available. He's interested in choosing someone who best fits his views, views we already know are outside the mainstream of American thought.
Do you really think he chose Miers not knowing where she stood on the big-ticket issues the court is likely to face? Do you really think he doesn't know, for instance, where she stands on abortion, religion and business? Of course I believe Bush when he says he hasn't sat down with Miers to discuss abortion. He doesn't need to. Bush also doesn't need a "litmus test," because he would never surround himself with anybody who would fail one.
Bush is on the record saying that his ideal Supreme Court justices are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. With that in mind, surely Miers knew what Bush was looking for when he tabbed her to find the right replacement for the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor. That she soon tabbed herself to replace O'Connor not only signals that cronyism is still alive and well in the West Wing, but also that Miers believes she is the best bet to follow in Scalia and Thomas's judicial footsteps.
Whether Miers will be a hardcore ideologue like Scalia or a follower like Thomas remains to be seen. Either way, what Miers isn't, I'm afraid, is another O'Connor, a common-sense jurist who brought a moderating voice to a divided court. Surely, like O'Connor, Miers will represent the crucial vote in potential future decisions. But let's not kid ourselves as to where her loyalties lie.