The Right Coast
October 09, 2005
By Mike Rappaport
The Miers nomination has really split the right. I was surprised by this claim made by Powerline:
I think that Bush is acutely aware that the Souter nomination was his father's worst and most avoidable mistake. I think that, as was widely reported, he liked John Roberts and was impressed by him during their relatively brief interview. But what grounds, really, does Bush have to trust Roberts? How does he know he won't "grow in office"? It seems pretty obvious to me that Bush selected Miers to make damn sure that at least one of his nominees won't drift to the left. He knows Miers well enough to know that she won't be seduced by Washington Post editorials and Georgetown dinner parties, as a number of Republican appointees have been. He doesn't think Roberts will be seduced, either, but he can't know for sure. Isn't it obvious that the reason Bush chose Miers instead of a better known, objectively better qualified nominee, is that he wanted to be absolutely sure of appointing a staunch and unwavering conservative?Well, I am willing to agree that Roberts could grow in office, although I have my doubts. But how is that an argument for Miers? As I suggested below, Harriet--never express an opinion in public--Miers may also grow. The best way to avoid such growth is to select someone who has taken public positions on matters and who therefore is likely to continue with those positions. One can nominate someone of this sort and still reasonably believe them to be confirmable -- for example, Michael McConnell.