My, Oh Miers
I think Al thought I was arguing in support of Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supremem Court the other night when I suggested that she might have had some experience writing opinions on Constitutional issues during her tenure at the White House, but I wasn't. At the time, I was reserving judgement. Although I found it deeply creepy that Bush thought it was appropriate to appoint someone on the basis of personal friendship and loyalty, and I suspected that anyone Bush valued as highly as he says he values Miers would be unlikely to oppose any of Bush's views or objectives (because Bush tends to surround himself with yes-men and -women), I wanted to hear more about Miers' background and qualifications, as well as her views on the role of the Court and its justices from her own mouth.
I've yet to hear anything from Harriet Miers, but the more I hear about her from Bush and other conservatives, the more my hair stands on end. Could Bush have been more squirrelly during that news conference yesterday when a reporter repeatedly asked him about whether he'd asked Miers what her views were on abortion? His last assertion, that he couldn't "recall ever sitting down with her," was a cross between a dodge and a bald-faced lie. It's not so much her position on abortion that worried me after I heard the exchange; it was that Bush was so totally unwilling to answer the question(s) about it. A Supreme Court nomination should not be shrouded in secrecy and lies, period, but does anyone else find it unnerving that they're designed to hide something more from the Right than the Left?
This concern seems to be borne out by an article on the Washington Post's website called "Strong Grounding in the Church Could Be a Clue to Miers's Priorities", which on the surface sounds like an alarm to the Left, but which is full of quotes from the far Right regarding their dismay at Miers' lack of conservative credentials. It's a head shaker, that's for sure. Excerpt:
Even in Dallas, home of groups such as the Texas Eagle Forum and the Republican National Coalition for Life, some religious conservatives say Miers, 60, has demonstrated an insufficient commitment to family values. They cited a questionnaire she filled out for a gay rights group in 1989 as a candidate for Dallas City Council, indicating that gay people should have the same civil rights as straight people and that the city should fund AIDS education and services. After her election, she appointed an openly gay lawyer to an influential city board.
"For goodness' sake, why elevate AIDS over cancer? She shouldn't have filled out that questionnaire at all," said Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum. "President Bush is asking us to have faith in things unseen. We only have that kind of faith in God."
Here's the head-shaking part for me: What about stating a belief that the municipal government should provide AIDS education and services says that you're "elevat[ing] AIDS over cancer"? These are the same folks who think that asking to be treated as an actual human, a contributing member of society—with the same rights and privileges as other members of society—is asking for something "special". Puh-LEASE.
In any case, after resisting a knee-jerk opposition to any Bush nominee to the high court, I'm growing more and more concerned about the prospect of a Justice Miers. I'm curious, however, about how the Left will respond—and wondering if they even should. Would strong opposition from gay, women's, and abortion rights groups (as well as Democrats) cause the Right to rally behind Miers, despite their reservations? Would quietly opposing Miers give the various right-of-center groups a chance to in-fight it out, so to speak?