Since everything this White House does is politcal in the extreme --is is possible that they are hoping that nominating the President's own counsel will then put her plausibly off-limits for questioning by either the press or the law later this month when, as rumor has it, the s*** will hit the fan on Plamegate? 

ohn Roberts was confirmed last week by a comfortable margin. This margin was encouraging, conservative pundits argued, because it proved that Bush's presidency wasn't weakened by Iraq and Katrina and GOP scandals. A weak President would have had a tougher time getting his nominee through the Senate. I disagree; this is a weak President, and I think Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers confirms it.

Who is Harriet Miers? She is a life-long Bush loyalist who David Frum of the National Review remembers saying that she thinks Bush is the most brilliant man she had ever met. She has no experience as a judge, has never argued before the court she presumes to become a member of, and has been employed by Bush the civilian and Bush the President. She is an under-the-radar choice whose record appears to be limited to financial contributions to Republicans.

Miers, like Roberts, is a weak choice by a weak President. A strong Bush White House would be trying to force a more notorious and more documented regressive conservative down the nation's throat. A stronger President would be able to rely on his Senate to push his agenda.

But just because she is a weak pick doesn't mean she isn't dangerous. Because we know nothing about her, it is prudent to assume that she is intensely conservative. It is essential that Democrats do everything they can to guarantee a thorough vetting by the Judiciary Committee and America.

In general, I believe we have entered a third stage of Bush's presidency. The first stage was pre-September 11, during which time Bush was a bumbling and ineffective President. Many forget just how badly his first nine months in office went. The second stage, which ended November 2nd, 2004, was his 9/11 honeymoon. Bush was given wide berth both internationally and domestically to push his agenda because America unwisely trusted his leadership. This was his "War President" heyday.

We're now in a post-September 11-shock nation and Bush is being asked to govern with more than rhetoric. His agenda is faltering abroad and at home and he can't even make the most of two Supreme Court vacancies. Bush is being forced into a Guerilla War against mainstream America. Harriet Miers is an IED buried innocuously on the side of the road. Plotted in advance and positioned to cause the most damage, this woman's lack of record is her most dangerous asset. Roberts could prove to be similarly explosive, though I believe he has demonstrated a judicial temperament and intelligence that will make him independent minded.

The Bush team is aware that it's honeymoon is over. With scandal, ineptitude, and casualties mounting, America isn't as susceptible to Rovian Blitzkrieg as it used to be. When faced with such a resistance, an army goes guerilla. Bush's agenda is likely to become more shadowy, peppered with flashes of legislation to remind us he exists. It's the American Revolution all over again--a small band of landed aristocrats in arms against a distant sovereign. Except this is America and in this country the people are sovereign and it's our President who is distant.

I cross-posted this at The Baltimore Group. 

Here, let my help you dive deeper into your reading list:

1. Bush and Cheney impeached?  Only with a Democratic House of Representatives, and then you'd need a Democratic Senate to convict/remove.  I like our prospects in 2006, but not that much, and there's never been a 1-2 impeachment punch like that (heck, only had 2 impeachments in WH total).

2. JP Stevens stays healthy....here you have some hope.  He's fiesty enough to last through another 3 Repub administrations, if need be.  Picture Strom on the Bench.

3. Nefarious thoughts?  Let's keep those thoughts limited to things like the Hand of God slapping some clarity into their heads.  We're the good guys, right?

Hey, at least I'm keeping my nefarious thoughts to myself.  For those two, charitable thoughts add up to more tax cuts for their favorite charities --> the rich and powerful.

This makes me feel almost fond of Bush, for the first time ever.  He finally has stopped listening to his "advisors" and is going with his heart.

On whether John Roberts was a weak choice by Bush:

Roberts was an excellent choice because he gave progressives little to object to.  However, if you read the wing nuts, they're concerned because Roberts is a bit of an unknown (another Souter).  They are afraid of his judicial temperament because it could end up preventing him from being regressive.  A strong choice would have been Owens or someone of her ilk--someone that had to be rammed down Democrats' throats to the glee of the religious right.

Miers is similar because the Right doesn't want her.  They may grow to love her, but take a look around at conservative blogs today (here, for example, the title being "Utter Disgust") and you'll understand that they feel betrayed.

That the Right has felt betrayed--at least initially--by both of Bush's nominations says that Bush is weak.  Let's all remember the contempt and audacity Bush has displayed in the past (Iraq, Social Security, Nuclear Option, etc.).  Miers and Roberts were picks that took Democratic opposition into account, instead of ignoring it with joy.

Also cross-posted at The Baltimore Group. 

      Harriet Miers was the recommended Bush nominee by several Senate Democrats including Harry Reid who praised the nomination. She has given contributions to Democrats over the years including Al Gore's 1988 campaign for Democrat Presidential Nomination. She is probably the best choice we could get considering this is a conservative Republican administration and therefore will nominate people with a similar ideology. The Democrats will approve her unless something terrible comes up, but the Republicans will be the ones who will have a harder time to approve this supreme court nominee.

Two points:

 Confirms the "Bush lives in a bubble" theory: asked to pick the best jurist for the SCOTUS, he picks the nearest lawyer.

With the mass of legal trouble brewing for various members of the administration (Franklin/AIPAC, Rove/Libby/Plame, Safavian), including the rumors that Fitzgerald may be preparing indictments on conspiracy charges, can we be sure that Miers would recuse herself from all of these cases ?  Having been both Bush's personal attorney, and WH counsel, surely judicial ethics would require recusal, but these days you never know.

Given the possibility that Bush and Cheney were involved in Plamegate, Miers is his get out of jail free card.

 GW cares no more about his base, or Repub principals, or Iraq, or the survivors of hurricanes, or anything else.  He cares about his Gin-soaked hide.

Ever think you give Bush too much credit with the stealth thing?

That he might just go on 'gut reaction'?

Certainly, he has certain agendas which he screens for in appointments. But at the same time, if one carries it to a level of a grand intricate plot, suddenly I am reminded of those lefties who think that our CIA and FBI are brilliant genuis machines in charge of everything that goes on in the world.

You can't really compare Roberts and Miers without doing a grave disservice to Roberts. He was top of his class at Harvard Law, she got both her undergrad and JD from Southern Methodist University (currently the ranked #52 in the country).

This nomination seems to be a return to the strategy that got Bush himself into the White House. Pick a candidate who has no experience whatsoever so there's no record to criticize.

I suppose this could be seen as more evidence ot the neocons' antipathy toward the institution of the judiciary itself (anyone recall the republican on the floor of the house trying to link the murder of a judge's husband and child to dissatisfaction with "judicial activism"?) What better way to discredit an institution than to pack it with incompetents and cronies - look what it did for FEMA, after all.

Taylor - Somewhere today I read that Reid referred to Miers as a trial lawyer, absolute evil to this Administration.  Reid may be that sly fox you describe.. 

This is the same guy who looked into Putin's heart and saw a good person.  Enough said

Ah,  shine on, that immortal attitude of Sen. Roman Hruska (R) of Nebraska, who attempted to turn G. Harold Carswell's perceived mediocrity into an asset. "Even if he is mediocre," Hruska said, "there are a lot of mediocre judges and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters, and stuff like that there."
 
So, Bush too picks a Carswell, and without the counter-balance of a Brandeis, Cardozo, or Frankfurter.

Who'd a thunk it?

Roberts was a dazzling choice.  Top of his class at Harvard Law.  Clerk to Chief Justice Rehnquist.  Winner of 25 of his 39 cases before the Supreme Court.  Brilliant orator.  Respected and liked by collegues, students, and co-workers of all stripes.  Beautiful, photogenic children.  In sum, a 100% trustworthy Christian white male.

Eh, maybe "dazzling" in scare quotes. "Dazzling" like the guys on underwear boxes or the women on WWF posters: all made up with no place to grow.

There are lots of smart jurists out there. Lots of them have similar qualifications, minus perhaps the kitteny eyes and flashy teeth. What distinguished Roberts from all of these other people with immaculate resumes? That never came clear.

Roberts was superficially qualified--I am still not persuaded he actually wanted the job more than Fred Thompson wanted him to have it. I never saw the fire that would mark him as an interesting justice or someone of constitutional stature; all that came across on the television was photogenicity and ability to handle softballs thrown by both friendly and unfriendly senators. 

Roberts was airbrushed (beige) to within an inch of his life, and the Republicans lowered the bar by not pushing hard enough to crack the finish. They failed their constitutional duty to thoughtfully advise and consent by letting someone on a greased track slip through without much discernment.

Which of course brings us to Miers. She doesn't even measure up to the "establishment" standards Roberts scored so well on. As should be clear from the foregoing, I don't think much of those "establishment" standards--I'm less fussed than many that she didn't come from a "top tier" law school--but this presents a more interesting dynamic.

Harriet Miers seems, strangely, to have a real life of sorts. Sure, she spends all of her time at work, but there's more texture there. She seems like a more complex and interesting person than Roberts. What's up with all of these donations to Democrats well after her conversion experience? How did she reconcile that conversion with her opinions on gay rights in 1989?  

And now columnists like George Will are raising the presumption that the President shouldn't "get his man" automatically, and that the Senate ought to be discerning. They ought not give automatic deference to the President's pick. 

A worm turned somewhere, and it's not terribly clear where. Are Republicans so elitist (we know Will is, so that's not at issue) that competence questions loom all-important for someone from SMU but not for someone from Harvard? They seem awfully worried that she has no judicial experience, versus the two years Roberts had--but that difference pales in the face of a lifetime appointment.

In confirming John Roberts, the Senate lowered the bar. That is putting Republicans in a difficult situation with respect to Harriet Miers: now their President has appointed someone who doesn't even clear the low bar, and they have to choose whether to follow him down, or raise it back up, tacitly admitting they may have "let the last one slide."

Not an appealing choice since they have made judicial nominations such a central issue in politics, especially for their red-meat-hungry base.