A bungled vetting process

When John Roberts was under consideration for the Supreme Court, the White House subjected him to a rigorous vetting process. Roberts, like every other high court nominee of the last quarter century, met with nearly every possible White House official who would have input into selection. In his case, that meant lengthy discussions with Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Andy Card, Scooter Libby, Harriet Miers, and Deputy White House Counsel William Kelley.

Surely, when the White House decided to replace Sandra Day O’Connor with the president’s own lawyer, they subjected her to at least a process that was at least as painstaking as Roberts, right? As it turns out, not so much.

Documents released Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee reveal that the Bush administration’s vetting of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers was controlled by a few insiders, a stark contrast to what Chief Justice John Roberts experienced as a contender for a court seat two months earlier. […]

Miers, 60, said that during the two weeks before Bush nominated her Oct. 3, she spoke with her deputy William Kelley, White House chief of staff Andy Card and the president and learned “my name was under consideration.” She said she met with Bush four times — on Sept. 21, 28 and 29, and Oct. 2 — to discuss the possibility of her being nominated. Miers said Card arranged a dinner on the night of Oct. 2 for her, the president and first lady Laura Bush.

Miers indicated she was not interviewed by several others who are usually involved in vetting Supreme Court candidates, including officials at the Justice Department, Vice President Cheney and deputy chief of staff Karl Rove.

I’ve had more than a few concerns about Miers’ nomination the past couple of weeks, but this is just odd. Sure, this isn’t a White House known for seeking a variety of input, but why tap the president’s lawyer for the Supreme Court through a stunted vetting process?

Was Bush trying to make it easier for his sycophantic buddy to get the job without too much trouble? Was he afraid others might talk to her and try to change his mind?

“It strikes me as quite unusual that she would have a process unlike that for any other one under consideration,” said Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor who has written extensively about nominations.

Gerhardt suggested that the way the White House handled Miers’ selection left her vulnerable to the ongoing criticism — much of it from fellow conservatives such as commentators Pat Buchanan and George Will — about Miers’ credentials. “The norm is to do as much of a background check as possible to prepare yourself for all possible attacks,” Gerhardt said. “They did not do that here.”

I realize the Bush gang might be distracted by the threat of criminal indictments, but Miers’ lackluster vetting process is just bizarre, even by Bush standards.

While Hillary may have other thoughts on my question, couldn’t it be used as a negative that one of the folks used to vett Harriett was the First Lady?

  • I think Steve Colbert said it: Bush “knows her heart”. He didn’t say anything about her brain.

    Bush cronyism is showing signs of being genetic, beyond political calculation. It’s odd though, that a man nearly 60 years old, from a long established political family of great power, has such a limited acquaintance with qualified cronies.

    When JFK made his brother the AG, at least he named a highly qualified crony.

  • This is how Bush selects people. Always has. Always will.

    Like the lackluster Katrina response, I would chalk the Miers selection up to the Fitzgerald investigation. With Rove and Cheney distanced from the president, Bush has been acting more on his own initiative. Needless to say, the results are less than stellar.

  • It’s the ultimate in “lawyering up.”

    Who better to have on the Supreme Court when they might have to decide some sticky constitutional issues regarding criminal indictments of the president, than your very own personal lawyer?

  • Maybe she was always intended to be the straw man and when they have to give up on her they’ll come up with whatever atrocity they really had in mind. I doubt this given Bush’s utter incapability to back down on anyhting – which argues the white house is utterly disfunctional right now with all the indictments. time will tell

  • Comments are closed.