Splitting Your Base and Other Examples of Political Stupidity

I've been mulling over the Harriet Miers nomination and carefully avoiding any rush to judgment on it the past day or so.

Having heard various arguments, pro and con, I feel prepared to weigh in now.

First, here's a snapshot of Miers.

Bill Kristol neatly summarizes the cons:

I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush?

More con arguments here, here and here.

Hugh Hewitt leads the Miers Defense Brigade. Keep scrolling.

More pros here, here and here.

As for me, I think conservatives ought to reject Miers for the following reasons:

1. She is not a reliable conservative. She was a Democrat into the late 80s, past even the Reagan Democrat migration.

2. She is not a strong jurist. I'm not against non-judges and non-lawyers on the Supreme Court, but these justices tend to rely heavily on their clerks for legal expertise, and a Justice who is herself not overtly ideological will not have ideological clerks and will be much more likely to "grow" into a full-fledged liberal overtime. Keep in mind that the trial lawyers are a big Democrat constituency, and that her weakness in the law is in exactly the area where Democrats and liberals predominate. As a former Democrat herself, would she resist the Beltway pressure to go Left? Not likely.

3. She is a Bush crony. If Bill Clinton tried to put Bernie Nussbaum on the Court, I'd be furious. Miers is no Priscilla Owens or Michael Luttig. Being close to Dubya doesn't mean a thing to me, as much as I admire this President. He is too loyal to his inner circle. Let's face it---every President staffs up with cronies. Does anybody believe Arkansas was the home of the best and brightest when Clinton started filling out his patronage slots? The Court is a lifetime appointment, not a Christmas present.

4. She is too old. The Court needs new blood, not another AARP pick. Bush should pick someone who will serve 25-30 years.

5. Bush owes his base. Conservatives have gotten screwed time and again on Court picks, chiefly because Democrats controlled the Senate---Warren, Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor. By this point, it ought to be a 7-2 conservative Court, but because Republicans care too much about what The New York Times thinks of them, we're stuck at 5-4. There is a time to acquire power, and a time to exercise it. What is Bush waiting for? Does he really think 2006 will be the year the GOP goes up 60-40 in the Senate?

6. This is the Left's last bastion. It is time to destroy judicial activism and return the Court to its proper role.

Conservatives need to kill this nomination. Two stealth candidates are at least one too many.

Bush owes us an honest debate on the judiciary, not another empty promise.