I oppose the Miers nomination.
This has been rather obvious from my previous posts on this issue, but let me just say emphatically that I oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. The reasons are too numerous to mention — she is, based on everything we’ve seen so far, unqualified to sit on the nation’s highest court, she has no discernable judicial philosophy to speak of, and she is far more closely related to the Executive Branch than a Supreme Court Justice should be. The final straw, though, the final nail in the coffin, came this morning when I picked up my somewhat soggy copy of The Washington Post and read this story on the front page.
As president of the State Bar of Texas, Harriet Miers wrote that “our legal community must reflect our population as a whole,” and under her leadership the organization embraced racial and gender set-asides and set numerical targets to achieve that goal.
The Supreme Court nominee’s words and actions from the early 1990s, when she held key leadership positions as president-elect and president of the state bar, provide the first window into her personal views on affirmative action, an area in which the Supreme Court is closely divided and where Miers could tip the court’s balance.
In other words, she supported a plan that is still in effect in the Texas State Bar to set aside certain leadership positions for women and minorities. During the time she was involved with the Texas State Bar, the Bar also promoted programs to promote so-called “diversity” in law firm. For example,
Miers was a believer in mentoring programs, but during her tenure she and the board of directors went further, passing a resolution urging Texas law firms to set a goal of hiring one qualified minority lawyer for every 10 new associates. The directors also reiterated support for a policy of setting aside a specific number of seats on the board for women and minorities.
I was not a fan of Miers to begin with, but this does it for me. At best, it indicates that she would be another O’Connor when she got on the Court. At worst, she could fall into line with Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg. Its time for the White House to do the respectable thing — let her withdraw and put forward a nominee we can actually be proud of.
Eric Cowperthwaite offers similar thoughts in this post and Ann Althouse has also come out against the nomination. A few days ago, Robert Bork came out with a scathing piece against the nomination. Yesterday, National Review came out in opposition.
In a final sign that the buzzards are circling, in tomorrow’s Washington Post, George Will comes out in opposition to Miers. The money quote is in the opening paragraph and it just gets better from there:
Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders.
The White House’s defense of Miers will undoubtably continue, but the arguments are ringing more hollow as the days go on.
The Difference Between Courage And Stupidity
It’s Time For This Nightmare To End
The Miers Nomination And Religion
Why Harriet ? Part II
Still More on Miers
Oppose Harriet Miers ? You’re Sexist
More On Miers
Solving The Miers Puzzle
Publius v. Harriet Miers
Why Harriet ?
Harriet Who ?