Watch the fun! The meme is: "crony." We'll start with the WSJ and then take a tour.
Randy Barnett in WSJ:
As the quote from Hamilton suggests, the core purpose of Senate confirmation of presidential nominees is to screen out the appointment of "cronies," which Merriam-Webster defines as "a close friend especially of long standing." Cronyism is bad not only because it leads to less qualified judges, but also because we want a judiciary with independence from the executive branch. A longtime friend of the president who has served as his close personal and political adviser and confidante, no matter how fine a lawyer, can hardly be expected to be sufficiently independent--especially during the remaining term of her former boss.
Much much more on the flip.
What's amazing is that as Barnett pointed out, the outcry starts with Alexander Hamilton.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 76:
To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.
And now on to some of the lesser lights of the conservative movement.
Southern Appeal:
I am done with President Bush: Harriet Miers? Are you freakin' kidding me?! Can someone--anyone--make the case for Justice Miers on the merits? Seriously, this is the best the president could do? . . . .Un-freakin'-believable.Oh, and if any of you RNC staffers are reading, you can take my name off the mailing list. I am not giving the national Republican Party another dime.
Right Wing News:
George Bush's decision to appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is bitterly disappointing. Miers is a Bush crony with no real conservative credentials, who leapfrogged legions of more deserving judges just because she was Bush's pal. She used to be Bush's staff secretary for God's sake and now she's going to the Supreme Court while people like Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown & Emilio Garza are being left on the sidelines. To merely describe Miers as a terrible pick is to underestimate her sheer awfulness as a selection.
Michelle Malkin:
It's not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It's that she's so transparently a crony/"diversity" pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste. If this is President Bush's bright idea to buck up his sagging popularity--among conservatives as well as the nation at large--one wonders whom he would have picked in rosier times. Shudder.
Powerline:
This nominee is a two-fer -- she would not have been selected but for her gender, and she would not have been selected but for her status as a Bush crony. So instead of a 50-year old conservative experienced jurist we get a 60-year old with no judicial experience who may or may not be conservative. I was hoping that, because this is Bush's second term, he would thumb his nose at the diversity-mongers and appoint the best candidate. He thumbed his nose all right, but at conservatives.
William Kristol:
I'm disappointed, depressed and demoralized. . . . I'm depressed. Roberts for O'Connor was an unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination--and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn't. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.
Mark Levin:
But, in truth, we already know what's going on here, and that the president, despite a magnificent farm team from which to choose a solid nominee, chose otherwise. Miers was chosen for two reasons and two reasons alone: 1. she's a she; 2. she's a long-time Bush friend. Otherwise, there's nothing to distinguish her from thousands of other lawyers. And holding a high post in the Bar, which the White House seems to be touting, is like holding a high position in any professional organization. But it reveals nothing about the nominee's judicial philosophy. There are many top officials in the Bar who I wouldn't trust to handle a fender-bender. Also, early in his term, the president singled out the Bar for its partisan agenda and excluded it from a formal role in judicial selection. The president said he would pick a candidate like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, and he did not. We all know of outstanding individuals who fit that bill, and they were once again passed over. Even David Souter had a more compelling resume that Miers.
Prof. Bainbridge:
I'm appalled. . . . This appointment reeks of cronyism, which along with prideful arrogance seems to be the besetting sin of the Bush presidency. At this point, I see no reason - none, nada, zilch - for conservatives who care about the courts to lift a finger to support this candidate.
Ed Whelan:
the White House has seriously underestimated the demoralizing effect of a "trust me" strategy. Here's an excerpt from a typical e-mail from one former Bush loyalist:
"Harriet Miers?? Harriet Miers?? (I have to say it over and over again, because I just can't believe that it's true). It's like Bush has become the cronyism perpetrator that his detractors have always alleged he was. I am fully willing to believe that she is a capable person and, probably, will vote the right way on many cases (but, then again, so did O'Connor 80% of the time). But, can anybody honestly argue that Miers was the best person (or woman) available? Is Harriet Miers the legal jurist we've been waiting for since the Souter debacle to stem the tide of liberal jurisprudence and make her mark on legal scholarship? Was she the reason I and many of my colleagues stood in the freezing rain on election day in Eastern Ohio to GOTV? Your sources say that Bush chose her because he thought she was the best that could be confirmed. That's such a cop-out. When it came to tax cuts and the war, Bush didn't seem to care about what people told him was possible. He fought (and won) things that pundits on both sides of the aisle said would not happen. But I (and many, many, many other social conservatives) did not vote for him to cut taxes or to go to war, but because of the Supreme Court. You are, of course, correct that all of that is history now, because she is the nominee. But, that doesn't mean that we should simply rally round the flag and bury our disappointment. Bush betrayed me and everyone else out there who expected him to fight for the future of Constitutional law, and he should be made to know it. Harriet Miers may be conservative and she may be pro-life, but that alone does not merit a seat on the Supreme Court. Nothing in her background (or in the opinions of the people I know at the White House) gives any assurance that she is capable of becoming a stellar jurist, much less of inspiring and convincing those unschooled in an honest interpretation of the Constitution. Bush has squandered the goodwill we gave him (not to mention squandering the opportunity to appoint a great legal mind to the Supreme Court) and I fear that the GOP will suffer for it. Boy, if I'm thinking like this, Bush is gonna be in big trouble, because normally I'm the biggest team player you can imagine. I worked my butt off for Bush in 2000 and 2004."
Matthew Franck:
He's probably right that the two (apparently) overwhelming reasons Bush picked Harriet Miers are that she's female and an old friend.
David Frum:
But the Supreme Court is exactly the place where the president should draw the line. The Court will be this president's great lasting conservative domestic legacy. He has chosen to put that legacy at risk by using what may well be his last Supreme Court choice to reward a loyal counselor. But this president, any president, has larger loyalties.
Jonah Goldberg:
Bush has a history of running against the wind of his strongest critics, which is one of the things I love about the guy. For example, people said Bush was too unilateral and hostile to the international community, so he appointed John Bolton. But, either by accident or design, this time around he seems bent on countering a different kind of criticism. He's been getting beaten -- somewhat unfairly -- for his alleged cronyism of late. This appointment seems like the Bolton approach; "Oh yeah, you think I'm into cronyism? Well here's my former personal lawyer from Texas!"
But there's a key difference. Hosility to the international community and "unilateralism" (code for protecting America's interests first) are principles Bush wins respect by defending. Cronyism is not a principle, or at least one not easily defended. Miers may be great stuff, but I don't think anyone can doubt Bush picked her because she's his gal Friday.
National Review Editorial:
Being a Bush loyalist and friend is not a qualification for the Supreme Court. She may have been the best pick from within Bush's inner circle. It seems impossible to maintain that she was the best pick from any larger field.
Rob Dreher:
Just talked to a very pro-Bush legal type who says he is ashamed and embarrassed this morning. Says Miers was with an undistinguished law firm; never practiced constitutional law; never argued any big cases; never was on law review; has never written on any of the important legal issues. Says she's not even second rate, but is third rate. Dozens and dozens of women would have been better qualified. Says a crony at FEMA is one thing, but on the high court is something else entirely.
Ramesh Ponnuru:
It's an inspiring testament to the diversity of the president's cronies. Wearing heels is not an impediment to being a presidential crony in this administration! I can only assume that the president felt that his support was slipping in this important bloc, and he had to do something to shore it up.
Please feel free to add your own quotes.
UPDATES!!!
Pat Buchannan:
Her qualifications for the Supreme Court are non-existent . . . Were she not a friend of Bush, and female, she would never have even been considered.
Geoffrey Stone:
I have been a professor of constitutional law for more than thirty years and an editor of the Supreme Court Review for more than a decade, but until George Bush dredged up Harriet Miers from Dallas to join him in the White House, I’d never even heard of her. ...
From all appearances, this is rank cronyism. Other presidents have appointed their friends to the Supreme Court. But even the “cronies” were far more experienced and better qualified than Ms. Miers. Justices like Abe Fortas, Byron White, and Fred Vinson were close friends of Presidents Johnson, Kennedy, and Truman. But they were also individuals with impressive achievements in the law and government service. Ms. Miers’s record pales by comparison.
When Richard Nixon, no fan of the Supreme Court, nominated the forgettable G. Harrold Carswell thirty-five years ago, Senator Roman Hruska defended the nomination with an unforgettable bit of wisdom: “Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there.” Have we sunk, again, to that level?
I cared enough about the Supreme Court to support John Roberts. And I care enough to oppose Harriet Miers, unless she demonstrates something in the hearings she’s never shown before.
Sen Brownback:
Sen. Brownback, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he hopes to learn more about Miers' background when he formally meets with her in his Senate office on Thursday.
"I have not come to any conclusions, but there's a great deal of skepticism about her as a candidate," he said.
Andrew Sullivan:
Bush really does believe he is above the usual sense of accountability...This guy will do what he wants. If he wants to pick a close friend and flunky, whatever her virtues, as a Supreme Court Justice, passing over dozens of other brilliant legal minds and more experienced jurists more acceptable to his base, that's what he'll do.
Ed Morrissey:
Not only does Harriet Miers not look like the best candidate for the job, she doesn't even look like the best female candidate for the job.