However scant, every reasonably successful liar leaves a trace of writing for the public record. And the
LA Times has
uncovered some of Miers' writings produced when she was President of the Texas Bar. Miers' columns sound pretty mainstream -- she focused on diversity and legal representation for all, which are issues that are pretty standard fare in the legal industry.
The crosscurrents were fierce, and Miers fought them by choosing a path that could safely be described as politically moderate and, at times, liberal -- by Texas standards anyway.
She called for increased funding for legal services for the poor and suggested that taxes might have to be raised to achieve the notion of "justice for all."
She praised the benefits of diversity, called for measures that would send more minority students to law schools, and said that just because a woman was the head of the state bar did not mean that "all unfair barriers for women have been eradicated."
Sounds like she may have voted to uphold affirmative action.
Remember in Seinfeld when George became anti-George and his karma shot up, for awhile at least?
Thus far in the process, Miers is proving to be the anti-Roberts. As soon as Roberts was introduced, the press lavished him with praise, hailing his credentials and supposed lack of partisan fire. Of course, as reporters started digging through the records, we found that the earnest, affable Roberts was something of an acerbic true blue winger in his youth. The dilemma for the Democrats then was this: was Roberts the Reaganite he was in his youth or the non-ideological professional that colleagues and friends now say he is?
Miers was met with a thudding reception, primarily because she appears to be little more than a hack. Then, we have a body of writing that reveals a fairly moderate sensibility (refusing to join the Federalist Society, for example), she remains suspect because her primary virtue is that she's a Bush loyalist. Like Roberts, she's apparently "changed" since the time of the writings -- she's now a devoted Christian, a reliable conservative vote in code.
If more info emerges that attests to Miers' moderation, the Democrats will have a serious dilemma. The most basic political issue is this: will Bush nominate a more acceptable (read: moderate) candidate if Miers is defeated? Who knows. Bush may push back against the wingers and nominate Abu Gonzales, or he may cave due to his weak position.
Leaving that question aside, some other side strategic issues should be considered.
Do you support a Bush loyalist and crony to the Supreme Court? If the Dems all support Miers, it weakens the political case against Bush's cronyism. Think of Lieberman giving cover to Heckuva Job Brownie.
A second issue that I've not seen mentioned is the play of psychology. If the Dems to support Miers as a block, she'd certainly get confirmed, even with the theocons if full revolt -- unless Bush ends up withdrawing the nomination. The natural human tendency, however unconscious, is to be grateful to your benefactors and resent your enemies. If Miers survives this right-wing onslaught, I would think she'd be more likely to be a maverick swing vote than she would had the wingers simply fallen in line, especially since Miers doesn't have an inflexible approach to constitutional jurisprudence already in place. I think Democratic support may well make her more resistant to pressures to vote with the conservative bloc.
The central problem, of course, is that Miers is an unqualified crony. She should not be on the court. But the Democrats may have to try to help her cause because the alternatives may be much worse.