Mired in Miers

As a good conservative I've been severely challenged as to the proper position to take relative to the President's Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court.

Infected with the David Souter hangover, I cringe at the possibility of a repeat with a person with such unknown conservative credentials. Yet on the other hand she is the President's choice. We've howled before at criticism of nominees on the basis that the President has a right - no an obligation - to chose someone of his philosophical persuasion. At this juncture I'm prone to go with George Bush.

First, he has consistently chosen candidates for lower courts based, at least in appearance, on the criteria that he campaigned on during both elections. Some critics have pointed to other choices made by the President which have not been good. The examples given were other than judicial.

Second, Bush may and probably should, have some doubts about his team in the Senate. If a staunch conservative with demonstrated credentials were nominated would his bunch get down into a hair pulling butt biting free for all and even if they would, could they win. We could all beat our chests and feel we stood up on principles, but we would have a defeat and an uncertain return engagement in the next nominee.

Thirdly, it is the Presidents choice. If we really interpret "advise and consent" in the strict constraints of Federalist 78, the can only ask for the characteristics which Bush strongly says Ms. Mier's possesses, character and competence. He feels she has these. For the rest of us we'll just have to wait and see.