No longer on the fence on the Miers nomination
It was reading this article, referenced at Michelle Malkin’s blog, that persuaded me against the nomination. Key part from the article:
Meanwhile, several constitutional law scholars said they were surprised and puzzled by Miers’s response to the committee’s request for information on cases she has handled dealing with constitutional issues. In describing one matter on the Dallas City Council, Miers referred to “the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause” as it relates to the Voting Rights Act.
“There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation — which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies — with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations.
That’s not comforting to read or hear. I can’t support someone who gets Constitutional law confused. Michelle has more links in her post from other bloggers who have dissected Miers’ answers to the 57-page questionnaire she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee – the arguments from those bloggers are very convincing.
John Hawkins has a roundup of less than complimentary commentary from well-respected conservatives on the Miers nomination that had me second-guessing my neutrality on this issue as well.
I don’t have anything to add to the argument against Miers. I will, however, say I have immense respect for those on the pro-Miers side who have done a great job of defending her nomination (like Hugh Hewitt and Beldar) who have had an uphill batttle to fight against the firestorm of criticism directed towards the President for what is widely considered a poor choice of a nominee for the USSC. Those who have argued passionately against this nomination without resorting to personal attacks, I praise as well. Those on either side who have made the arguments personal should step back and reassess their apparent inability to disagree civilly.
For the record, I won’t be joining the call for a withdrawal of the nomination. If the process works the way it should – with the lack of strong support being shown for this nominee – I think it’s a strong possibility she will not be confirmed.
Now excuse me while I attempt to rescue Patterico off that ledge.
Update: Make sure to check the comments section of the Patterico post I mentioned above for an interesting debate regarding the comments in question from Miers that I posted here (and have been posted at many other blogs, I’m sure).
Friday Update: Baseball Crank (a practicing lawyer) has a well-written post on why he, too, is no longer on the fence.
Related Toldjah So posts:
- Neutral on the Miers nomination
- The Laura Bush “It’s Possible” Controversy
- Thoughtful commentary on the Miers nomination
- Thomas Sowell on the Miers nomination
- Conservative discussion about Harriet Miers
- More thoughts on Miers
- Media digs and Miers conservative credentials start to stand out
- One thing you shouldn’t hold against Miers
- Hold on to your hats