Miers Nomination: Headed for a Train Wreck

[Update: Approximately 10 hours after I wrote this entry, Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be the next associate justice of the Supreme Court.]

The past few weeks have been grand fun. What new revelation will take place in the Harriet Miers saga?

I've been critical of the Miers nomination primarily because so many other qualified people were passed over and because of the bungled defense of the nomination (for instance, calling critics sexist elitists and blissfully claiming that Miers's religion is somehow a legal credential). But I am still willing to believe that she is nominally qualified to be on the Supreme Court-- and that there are credible arguments that she should be confirmed if her performance at the hearings is satisfactory. But we have reached the point where Bush must ask for Miers to withdraw. It's time to stop the bleeding.

"Regular" Republicans outside the Beltway are still telling pollsters that they "support" Miers by a wide margin. But in activist conservative circles, there is outright rebellion that is only getting more intense. Rank and file Republicans may provide the votes, but it is the activists who get those voters to the polls. There aren't enough blind Bush supporters to go around.

Not only is Miers far from the most qualified female Republican who could have been appointed, she may only be nominally a Republican. Definitely not much of a conservative. This much is evident from her speech (text) delivered to the organization Executive Women of Dallas in 1993.

Here's a beauty in that speech: "Legislating religion or morality we gave up on a long time ago." No doubt about it, that's liberalspeak. Only liberals talk about "legislating morality." Of course, liberals are legislating morality when they propose banning all smoking in private restaurants and bars.

Over on Redstate.org, where the intellectual conservatives hang out, one "gensec" writes:

I take the time to refute some liberal who's just repeating one of those myths you're socially required to believe in some circles, when the real problem is that President Bush has nominated to the Supreme Court some jackass dumb enough to deny "legislating morality." [A]fter seeing her "Executive Women of Dallas" speech demonstrate what a pathetic airhead conformist Miers is, I'm apalled.

What that Redstate.org entry demonstrates is that the tipping point has been reached where opposition to Miers has passed from respectful opposition to outright derision. Yet Republican Sen. Larry E. Craig issued the following disdainful statement to activists: "It's awfully hard to be critical of something you know nothing about." Strange.

And here's the rub: Bush has appointed someone who could easily become a liberal activist judge once she is on the bench. Yet for Republican Senators to oppose her on ideology grounds would cement what Senator Chuck Schumer wants as status quo: the ability to oppose nominees on the basis of ideology. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wouldn't have received 96 votes in the Senate if ideology was a factor in confirmation. But Schumer wants to call every conservative jurist an "extremist" and vote against the person on grounds of ideology. For Republican Senators to vote against Miers because they aren't convinced that she is conservative enough plays right into Schumer's hands.

The Republican Senators do not deserve to be placed in such an untenable position. Bush must do the right thing for the Party and for himself. The Miers nomination must be withdrawn.