Excellent post, 100% right. I linked here from Instapundit and will be checking in regularly. If you haven't done so, please read Sebastian Mallaby's column on McCain in today's Washington Post.
I will do that. Thanks for your referral.
Good analysis of the system that this nominee is entering, but don't reject her outright! Give her a chance to show her intellect and knowledge of the law. That's what's important here. .
I allow that she could have a great mind for law. While this would be hard to show, that is not my primary objection.
The problem with Miers is that she was the personal lawyer of Bush and is still serving in a similar capacity. While this was not such a problem with Cheney (another executive, the proverbial right hand of the president), it is intolerable for a Supreme Court justice.
Whatever her other fine attributes, this relationship is beyond the pale of acceptability for our Constitutional system. The fact that Bush would do this is a slap in the face of his oath (already badly tarnished at this point) to preserve and protect the Constitution.
Paul,
I was waiting to see who the second SCOTUS nominee would be before I returned here and reread your post on chess (Of Chess and Nominations)
After reading your most recent post, and rereading that one, I'm finding it hard to come to any conclusion other than Bush isn't much of a chess player. What's your take?
"...political families that seem to be self-perpetuating in public office..."
Man, you are right, we really need to do something about those Kennedys. 
Kennedy, Clinton, Bush, etc. dynasties are for Hollywood.
JackSc,
I don't think Bush is in touch. Katrina seemed to show that. That and he is not a good government constructionist.
If he wanted to put forward a solid nominee like Luttig, he would win. Here he loses by giving away pieces one after another.
In short, he's just not in the game anymore.
I'm beginning to wonder if he ever was in the game at all...
I'm sure you are not alone in that.
Nope, you're not alone.
That's an interesting reason for rejecting Miers that I really hadn't thought much about. I had hoped for someone who would actually help the Court and not just preserve the status quo, so it's on those grounds that I oppose Miers. But you make a good point.
On the other hand, I'm not sure a president shouldn't select those he has the most confidence in for such positions. It would follow that those he holds in highest regard would be close to him politically. The bigger issue here is when a president selects someone who is so unknown and outside of the usual, accepted channels nominees are chosen from. We know so little about her that we're left with "trust Bush" as the best defense for supporting her. But he's knifed conservatives a few too many times for that to hold much water anymore...
The president acts as a holder of public trust in nominating to the SCOTUS. So he must also be transparently accountable to the people in the selection.
Commenting by HaloScan
