The president spent much of this morning’s press conference defending Harriet Miers and touting her well-hidden qualifications for the Supreme Court. On more than one occasion, though, Bush urged the Senate to confirm her on the basis of practically nothing.
“[Miers] understands the law, she’s got a keen mind, she will not legislate from the bench. I also remind [skeptics] that I think it’s important to bring somebody from outside the system, the judicial system, somebody that hasn’t been on the bench and, therefore, there’s not a lot of opinions for people to look at.” (emphasis added)
Bush went a little overboard towards the end of that thought. It’s “important” to have a Supreme Court nominee who doesn’t have “a lot of opinions for people to look at”? And why is that, exactly?
Shortly thereafter, a reporter reminded the president that he has “been on the receiving end of paperwork” from Miers for years, but the nation (and senators) “haven’t seen either her command of constitutional issues or her philosophy.” The press corps member asked if Bush would be willing to share her legal work as part of the confirmation process. Not surprisingly, he wasn’t fond of the idea.
“Listen, there is a — there is a lot of — first of all, this is part of the Roberts debate. People talked about executive privilege and documents. Secondly, it is important that we maintain executive privilege in the White House. That’s part of the deliberative process. That’s how I’m able to get good, sound opinions from people.
“And so, you know, I’m sure they’re going to try to bring this up. I happen to view it as — as a distraction from whether or not Harriet Miers is capable of answering the questions she’s asked. She can — all the questions they want. It’s a distraction from whether or not she will be a good judge.” (emphasis added)
So, to hear Bush tell it, reviewing the White House counsel’s legal work — presumably the work that impressed the president enough to nominate her for the Supreme Court — is little more than a “distraction.” In other words, in Bush’s mind, Miers’ legal work for the White House doesn’t tell us whether she’d make a good justice or not. If this is true, why would Bush have confidence in her ability to be a good justice?
I’m afraid none of this makes any sense. Bush wants a nominee who doesn’t have “a lot of opinions for people to look at” and believes her legal work is a “distraction.” Senators can ask Miers questions, which she’ll be told to dodge.
It leaves senators with precious little upon which to base their confirmation vote. It’s not her judicial work (she’s never been a judge); it’s not her constitutional expertise (she has none); it’s not her work in private practice (that’s privileged); and it’s not her work at the White House (which Bush has seen but will keep hidden from Congress).
Bush has offered the nation the first-ever faith-based Supreme Court nominee. Have faith that Bush has good judgment, makes wise decisions, and can pick a good judge. After all, he has a strong track record, right?