While it was apparent early on that this nomination was an act of cronyism and a potential threat to judicial independence, it seems that Ms. Miers doesn't even have a sense of Constitutional Law. This has been revealed after a meeting between Judiciary Chair Arlen Specter and Miers, by Specter's comments to the press afterwords. It seems to me that there is high likelihood of a rejection of Miers by the Senate if Bush does not withdraw her nomination, while this has been fun to watch, its time for Democrats to decide what to do, for right now, for this fleeting moment with a 10 member minority in the Senate, the Democrats possess great power.
Senator Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who presides over confirmation hearings, offered a blunt assessment that was yet another sign that the nominee faced an uphill battle on Capitol Hill. Though Mr. Specter called Ms. Miers "intellectually able," he said she had a "fair-sized job to do" to become fluent in the language of constitutional law, which will be essential for senators who want to examine her judicial philosophy in deciding whether to confirm her.
"She needs more than murder boards," Mr. Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in an interview, referring to the mock question-and-answer sessions most nominees use to prepare for their confirmation hearings. "She needs a crash course in constitutional law."
I diaried here at Kos before that the aim of the Bush Administration's Court appointments was not to overturn Roe or to limit Congress' commerce power so severely as to eliminate the entire New Deal (though I'm sure he views those as a nice bonus). Bush's real goal in his Supreme Court nominations is to expand executive power far beyond anything we have ever seen, and thus he appointed a crony who he trusts greatly.
In that diary I argued that Miers must answer one essential question to be confirmed, "Ms. Miers, when a case involving the Bush Administration comes before the Court will you recuse yourself?"
In light of Specter's assessment of her ability to interpret the Constitution should that even matter? Shouldn't Democrats oppose a nominee to the highest Court in the land who seems to have no understanding of the Constitution?
I'm torn on this nomination, if Democrats were to oppose her we would be right. But what comes next? The addition of extremely conservative Senators like Roberts and Allen voting with Democrats, and conservative pragmatists like Specter also joining Democrats, will not the President draw one lesson from her rejection, that he should nominate someone whose conservative credentials are not hidden at all? Would we not be better off with a wildcard on the Court than an Edith Jones or a John Luttig?
It will be the Democratic caucus that decides Miers' fate, and while we can watch Republicans fight with each other for a little while longer, we must make a decision on this, for now we have come to the first time since Republicans gained a 10 seat majority in the Senate that our voices will make a huge difference, this vote will be close, and we need to figure out where we stand. Right Now.