It has been observed that the one trait that Miers shares with Roberts is . . . loyalty to the Idiot in Chief. (Since she once told David Frum that GWB is "the most brilliant man she had ever met", she obviously has the more lasting labial impression on his buttocks.) Since this is a trait shared by virtually everyone Bush has ever hired, it comes as no surprise.
But what if there's more to it than that? I suggest that what matters most to Bush from his Supreme Court nomineess is. . .
. . . whether he will be able to count on them to help him continue to prevent the release of Poppy's Presidential papers, as well as, more importantly, his own.
Even conservatives appear to be unhappy with Miers' apparent lack of qualifications. Presuming that Rove's reputation isn't entirely smoke 'n' mirrors, then, there must be something else at stake other than putting a reliably conservative vote on the "slacker" end of the bench with Clarence.
Since most folks tend to focus their arguments over a nominee's propensity to vote a certain way on particular favorite "hot button" issues (abortion, defendants' rights, separation of church and state), it would be just like Turd Blossom to take advantage of this natural tendency to perform his latest act of sleight-of-hand (which, as we all know, is largeley based on misdirection).
Don't get me wrong - it's not that getting another consertive butt on the bench isn't desirable to these guys. But I have to think, at this point, that what they're really looking for is another pair of hands with a shovel to help keep the bodies buried.
* * * * * * * * *
FWIW, let me just say that I don't support the idea that Miers is a "good" pick in any sense of the word. AFAIC, a nomination to the Supreme Court should be the first step in the most invasive confirmation procedure possible. As long as a topic is colorably related to a nominee's fitness to serve on the bench, it can, and must, be explored.
Deference to the President isn't a legitimate issue here. This isn't choosing a member of the Administration team. This is the Supreme Court. In a very real sense, this is about altering the makeup of an entire branch of government, one of the checks and balances which are supposed to protect We the People. Roberts should have been rejected without a FULL examination of his record, including the documents the Bushies refused to provide. (Foreshadowing of my theory about his role on the SCOTUS?)
And, just to be clear, refusing to answer a question based on some idea that it conflicts with the idea of the prosepective justice's "impartiality"? Bullshit, pure and simple. Note that it doesn't mean that the nominee doesn't have an opinion - only that they won't discuss it. It's bullshit, whether the nominee is a Democrat or Republican.
