More Miers support

Hammerswing75 has pointed me to another article supporting Miers.

The case can be made that she is a good choice without resorting to the trust Bush mantra. Thomas Lifson made it at realclearpolitcs yesterday (actual article published elsewhere).

One of the big points that he made is that Miers will be a good fit for the court. She has the tools and the background to make other justices think and challenge themselves and ultimately recede from political partisanship to a more traditional role as actual jurists.

Well, it so happened that the message came to my Inbox as I was reading it here. He (Thomas) provides a lengthy article describing why the trust being sought is not necessarily blind trust.

Some of the "genius" behind the strategy includes the disarming of powerful lobbies that would oppose Bush's nominees.

He anticipates and is defusing the extremely well-financed opposition which Democrat interest groups will use against any nominee. Yes, he is playing politics by nominating a female. A defeated nominee does him and the future of American jurisprudence no favors. By presenting a female nominee, he kicks a leg out from under the stool on which the feminist left sits. Not just a female, but a career woman, one who has not raised children, not married a male, and has a number of “firsts” to her credit as a pioneer of women's achievement in Texas law. Let the feminists try to demonize her.

He then goes into the concept that there are plans for future vacancies. I do not support this aspect at all...I think this is the worst reason to hold back on a nominee. But he says:

The President must also prepare himself for a possible third nominee to the Court. With the oldest Justice 85 years old, and the vagaries of mortality for all of us being what they are, it is quite possible that a third (or even fourth) opportunity to staff the Court might come into play. Defusing, demoralizing and discrediting the reflexive opposition groups in the Democrats’ base is an important goal for the President, and for his possible Republican successors in office.

Just remember that the 2000 elections were so important because there were going to be up to 4 vacancies during that Presidential term. I even remember discussions during the Senate trial of Clinton on Rehnquist's health being so bad that he might not finish the trial. Don't use future vacancies as part of the planning and deciding for present ones.

Thomas closes his theory with her ability to swoon the other Justices.

Having proven herself capable of charming the likes of Harry Reid, leader of the Senate Democrats, is there much room for doubt that Harriet Miers is capable of opening up opponents emotionally to hear and actually consider as potentially worthwhile the views of those they might presume to be their enemies?

I'm not sure this is a solid arguement either, but at least it is not the blind "trust me" position that many of the Miers supporters offer.

I may eventually move to luke warm support.