Harriet Miers: Worse than We Thought

Wow.

Up until now,the primary complaint among conservatives has been than there was no evidence of Miss Miers being a strict constructionist in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas. Supporters of Miers have shown exactly zero evidence that she would strictly apply the Constitution. Now we find out that she doesn't understand the difference between the Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance.

In perhaps the dumbest comment in DC since Rep. Major Owens said that sharks were still dining on slaves thrown overboard in the 1700s, Harriet Miers, the best nominee the President could find while blindfolded in a private meeting with her, said in a 1993 speech, "We undeniable [sic] still have a justice system that does not provide justice for all as provided by the Pledge of Allegiance." Earth to Harriet: the Pledge of Allegiance is not in the Constitution. It provides words, albeit nice words. It has the same legal value as Grimm's fairy tales. Others have commented on the typos and ungrammatical comments by the supposedly meticulous nominee, but this takes the cake.

Thankfully, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has shown the courage that has yet to be seen in Senate Republicans. He has announced that he does not think that Miers is sufficiently intelligent to serve on the Supreme Court. This is not a personal insult to her, but not everybody is capable of everything. I'm not fast enough to win Olympic gold in the 100m, nor am I sufficiently informed to speak intelligently on US relations with Madagascar. This doesn't mean I can't do anything, but I am simply not cut out for everything. If you are so inclined, take a moment to thank Rep. Tancredo for his courage.

Equally troubling, and intriguing, is that the quote comes from a speech in which Miers confirmed the fears of conservatives that she does not share our philosophy. For example, she said, "where science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based on religious belief, then government should not act". As a Supreme Court justice, Miers would not be in a position to determine what the government should do. Instead, she must determine whether the government can do certain things. Her personal opinions about the right course of action should be irrelevant. Her apparent willingness to equate the Pledge of Allegiance with the Constitution strongly suggest an inability to distinguish between these two points. As if this were not enough, the White House has used her supposed personal beliefs, including her religion, as a primary means of supporting her nomination. This action in and of itself is entirely inappropriate for judicial nominees, but in this case, it has caused even more trouble. If Miers's personal beliefs indicate how she would rule, then we now have every reason to believe not only that she will not arrive at her conclusions through proper reasoning, but that even her conclusions will be wrong.

The late-breaking good news is that there is no news on her overdue do-over questionnaire. It is bad enough that members of both parties returned the questionnaire like an angry college professor whose student did not address the topic on which he was supposed to write the paper. If questions about her intelligence and philosophy were not enough, this fuels the fire that she cannot function effectively as a Supreme Court Justice. The easiest part of the nomination process is the written questionnaire. Miers gets to use any cheat sheet she wants. It is effectively an open book test that can be pre-graded by some of the top legal scholars in the country. Scratch that. It can be pre-graded by people similar to Miers, which speaks volumes of the qualifications of the lawyers in the Bush administration. Even with plenty of time and all the help she could have wanted, Miers failed with flying colors.

Fortunately, this lateness suggests of a possible imminent withdrawal. Tomorrow afternoon could be the ideal time for the announcement, as special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is expected to announce indictments in the Plame leak investigation. While it would be a nightmarish day for the White House - substance of the indictments aside - a withdrawal timed to coincide with the announcement of the indictments would force the media to divide coverage, thus limiting the damage. It could also allow conservatives to reunite with the President at a time when his approval ratings among non-Republicans would be likely to drop. Here's hoping that my next post can be about the Miers withdrawal.