The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet

So, I've held off on this topic for as long as I can. Earlier this month, President Bush achieved what could be his most arrant consensus, permeating across all political boundaries with his nomination of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice. Unfortunately, the consensus was "...huh?"

Having picked a virtual nobody from nowhere, W has sent journalists (and others) scattering like marbles tossed on an ice rink looking for clues on who Harriet Miers is and more importantly, what to make of her. Wisely, most democrats seem to be content to sit back and watch the drama unfold before them while conservative commentators bicker back and forth. Some, like Senate minority leader Harry Reid even warmed up to the selection, saying "I like Harriet Miers."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051003/pl_nm/bush_court_miers_dc

Hmmm... Bad juju.

So what is my take on this selection? Dump her!

I have unequivocally supported W in 2000 and 2004 for the primary reason of SCOTUS nominee selection. Granted, there were other reasons - not the least of which being the alternatives were hypocritical, special-interest whoring, liberal buffoons. No matter what else W did or didn't do, picking SCOTUS nominees was going to have the single biggest and most lasting effect on our nation and our day to day lives. And yes, bigger than a war in Iraq.

Bush promised to select nominees that were "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas." Great! That's what I want. However, as is well known among those who pay attention, stealth nominees have not been kind to conservatives.

If Harriet Miers is not a Scalia-Thomas clone, this will be a huge betrayal by those who elected Bush, who anticipated at least one opening on the SCOTUS bench during his term. This betrayal, in my opinion, could never be forgiven. Certainly there are alternatives to Miers with a much clearer judicial history.

Now lets say she is a Scalia-Thomas clone. She is also 60. One of the stated reasons Bush selected Miers is that he knows she won't change her opinion in 20 years. This I agree with since she likely will not be breathing in 20 years.

The fact is nobody knows about Harriet Miers. Addressing this, Bush has said, "trust me." While I do not question his whose overall honesty and integrity, I do not trust him with a matter this important. He simply does not have the track record for me to do this.

President Bush has betrayed me with his amnesty program for illegal aliens - oh sorry, "temporary guest workers." He betrayed me by signing that horrible attack on the first amendment called the McCain-Fiengold campaign finance reform bill. He betrayed me by showing no ability to control runaway discretionary spending. He has never vetoed anything. How "conservative" is he?

The new estimates show that, under Bush, total outlays will have risen $408 billion in just three years to $2.272 trillion: an enormous increase in federal spending of 22 percent.

Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html

That article from the CATO institute is over 2 years old. Do you think these drunken sailor ways have improved?

I suspect that neither Bush, nor the Republican senate feels they can get a known, strong conservative nominee through - even though the improperly named "nuclear option" would allow them to do so, quite legally. Why? Because democrat senators, knowing their counterparts are enjoying the tax funded pig-trough as much as they do, will shut down all senate "business" (a.k.a. vote buying) if judicial fusion occurs.

I believe Bush selected Harriet Miers because he trusts and believes in her. I however, consider neither Bush, and by association Miers, conservatives.