Harriet Goes Home

All the prayer in the world could not save the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court. Just moments ago, the president "reluctantly" accepted her decision to withdraw her nomination.

There was never really any question in my mind that she was offered up as road kill, and I predicted on this site the day she was nominated that she would never be confirmed. See, Harriet Who? October 3, 2005. So, satisfied as I am at having just this once gotten something right, I remain concerned about the meaning of these events.

Harriet Miers was not offered as a candidate because of her credentials. This woman without qualities has no contitutional philosophy, no discernable commitment to text, structure, history or any particular cannon of interpretation. She is a member of the president's prayer club, that was her sole qualification, call her a praying lap dog.

Well, not quite. She was also willing to take a hit for the team.

The meaning of her nomination? She was offered as cannon fodder. My hunch is that strategists knew she couldn't cut it, but that they could turn opposition to her to their long-term advantage? How?

The confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts went surprisngly easy. There was no bipartisan war; no need to "go nuclear." In the Miers case, the president was able to draw off some of the steam of his opponents. Offer a cipher and let people vent. No one would really go nuclear over such a candidate; a mere fly swatter would do. Harriet Miers was the warm-up show.

The next nominee will be someone with views more easily ascertained, and more controversial. My hunch is the president wanted some breathing room. Oh, he'd have been happy with Miers, were she confirmed. But I suspect he expected to win her confirmation about as much as he hopes to win the next Power Ball lottery.

Next move by the White House? Appointment of a pedigreed conservative, and then fingerpointing at opponents who are trying to obstruct yet another nominee. Remember: You heard it here first.

Comments

[Nuge]

Norm:

I use explorer so I have not figured out how to go back and look at my post on this subject. I recall posting that she was not Bush's true candidate but cannon fodder for the US before his true candidate is announced. At the time, some posted their disbelief.

Nuge

[Donald]

The problem is that anyone who's been paying the least bit of attention knows that opposition to Miers came from the right. So it'll be hard to paint the left as obstructionists for blocking Jones/Clement/Brown/whomever when they weren't the ones fighting Miers.

[otto]

Seems a little silly to me that you think that at the next go-around Bush would have some credability advantage over anyone. This was a defeat for Bush and actually makes it very easy for Democrats to add cronyism to their list of grievances no matter who he nominates next. Harriet Miers actually managed to overshadow Michael Brown in terms of embarrassing examples of cronyism, and who is accusing the Democrats of "obstructing" this nomination anyway? I think the reason we "heard it here first" is pretty obvious.