by Scott Shields, Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:32:41 AM EDT
The news is out this morning that Bush has decided on White House Counsel Harriet Miers to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. It's notable that Miers has never served as a judge, so she has even less of a record than John Roberts.
But what immediately jumps out in the wire story about Miers is that she's "a loyal member of the president's inner circle," having served in the past as Bush's personally attorney. We've seen some what some of the other people in his inner circle are capable of, so I personally can't imagine that's a good thing. And another Bush partisan, "Axis of Evil" speechwriter David Frum, wrote on the National Review website about Miers' loyalty that right now is "no time for the president to indulge his loyalty to his friends." He was referring to the fact that Miers once told him that Bush "was the most brilliant man she had ever met." I'm supportive of the idea that the President deserves a lot of leeway to pick Supreme Court nominees. But this pick -- no matter what Miers' ideology -- seems to be the most egregious example of Bush cronyism we've seen so far.
Those are my initial thoughts. How about yours?
Update (Jerome): Be sure and check out the comments on RedState's Confirm Them. Gov Dean used to recount (it's in his recent book too) that Bush all along was faking it to the wingers, telling him something along the lines (when they were both Governors) that "I can't stand those nuts". This is cronyism, sure, typical Bush-like, choosing the chooser. Bush and Rove are beyond caring about what the public thinks, including the cons. It's obvious that Miers isn't a movemement conservative (she gave money to Bentson & Gore in the late 80's). Apparently she's on the Dems "no filibuster" list (laugh along as the cons cry about betrayal and cut loose). If she turns out to be a true conservative, it won't come out until after the next mid-term; let the damage be done.