Harriet Miers - Bad on Both Sides

The big question today is whether or not Harriet Miers is experienced enough to sit on the Supreme Court.

The short answer is no.

But...

It's not because she's never been a judge. Plenty of people have served on the Supreme Court who were never judges.

It's because she's a woman.

Just kidding. The reason Harriet Miers is wrong for the Supreme Court is that she has no relevant experience. John Roberts, whether or not you agree with him, had plenty of relevant and necessary experience. He was a judge for two years, he has argued before the Supreme Court, he is the protege of William H. Rehnquist - he worked under him during the 1980s - and he has a paper trail, even if it is a bit conservative.

Harriet Miers has no paper trail on hot-button issues. In fact, she has no paper trail whatsoever. That is what kept President Bush from nominating Alberto Gonzales for the position. He has a stance on social issues - like abortion - that is problematic for the conservative Republican base, and right now W. does not have the "captial" to entrench himself in a fight. He's been weakened, obviously, by the recent events of Hurricane Katrina and his handling of the war in Iraq. Moreover, he's backed himself into a corner for not appointing more minorities and women. He came under serious heat for not nominating a woman for the position Roberts now occupies. Even with Gonzales out of the picture, however, Bush had plenty of people more qualified than Ms. Miers.

Can she be a red herring? Or is she just another crony?

Miers is not only being opposed by socially-sensitive liberals and evangelical Republicans. Hardcore loyalists to the president have been vocal over his choice in Miers as well. David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, has expressed great concern over the choice to nominate Miers. Why? Not because she won't shore up the base. It's because she doesn't have the experience. Frum writes, "I am not saying she is a Michael Brown. But I am saying that she is being chosen for her next job in exactly the same way and for the same reasons that Michael Brown was chosen for FEMA. And that is not good enough for me"
(http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1128619289.shtml)

It begs the question: Is this a calculated maneuver - a political "rope-a-dope" if you will - to seem weaker to opposition, namely the Democrats, or is it just another sad case of cronyism gone painfully awry?