Reactions To The Miers Nomination

This morning President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to fill O'Connor's seat on the supreme court. The blogosphere has since erupted into the most confusing web of cross-linked posts I have ever seen. From reading the reactions either Bush knows something a lot of people don't, is hoping Miers isn't confirmed, or just made a colossal mistake.

In the "trust the president camp", I found the following.

Lorrie Byrd at polipundit:

I really hope that she will be able to handle the questioning by the Senate judiciary committee even half as well as Roberts did. From the brief statement I heard her give I did not get the impression that she is a terribly tough cookie, but I guess we will find out soon enough. Again, on that subject I am having to trust that the President knows her well enough to know that she is up to the task.

Hugh Hewitt, in a post title Do You Trust Him? ends with this:

The president is a poker player in a long game. He's decided to take a sure win with a good sized pot. I trust him. So should his supporters.

World News has a seven part series on Miers, with five pro posts, one con, and one view from her pastor. Here's the link to part one; use the controls at the top to navigate between the seven posts.

The negative posts are almost too numerous to count. You could start with Ankle Biting Pundits, which has a huge list of mostly negative reactions.

The Anchoress, who predicted the pick, is in the Miers is a decoy camp:

My own prediction: She may not make it to the Supreme Court. Bush may not even intend for her to get there. She may be, rather than the “misdirection,” many expected, an out-and-out decoy, floated to allow both the liberals and the conservatives to blast her out of the water so that Bush can then put up another candidate that both left and right - after having behaved very badly over Miers - will not dare to behave badly over, again.

Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly thinks Miers is a true conservative wrapped in an enigma.

I think they're all missing the point. Yes, Miers is a Bush crony, and that's surely part of the story, but the bigger point is that Bush and Rove are practical politicians who know perfectly well that the kind of candidate the activist base likes is wildly unpopular with the public, because the ultraconservative agenda itself is wildly unpopular with the public. A "distinguished constitutionalist track record" is the last thing Bush and Rove want. A cipher is the best chance they have to get a real conservative on the court, and they know it.

Michelle Markin is shocked, saying:

It's not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It's that she's so transparently a crony/"diversity" pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste.

You can also read disappointment that she is 60, which really confuses me. On one hand, people don't think she is a good choice; on the other hand, they are upset she won't serve on the court forever. Color me confused. And apparently over at DailyKos (which I am loathe to link to or read) they are suggesting that she must be a lesbian because she has never been marred. Someone explain to me again why the most liberal blog would be upset if she was a lesbian? Isn't accepting alternative lifestyles something you would expect a liberal to do?

My own take? My initial reaction is the Bush made a mistake on this one. The only thing that is clear from reading about Miers is that she is a very, very religious person. So that is going to upset the left. But it isn't going to be enough to placate the right. I wouldn't be surprised to see the nomination fail. While that might be good for the court if she truly isn't qualified, the media would latch on to it as a failure by Bush and the cries of lame duck would begin.

Time will tell, but this is certainly an interesting twist.