Here's another whacky idea. Let's say the White House planned everything that's happened to date on the Harriet Miers nomination. To accept this premise you have to believe that Bush nominated a candidate that he knew most Conservatives would find unacceptable despite personally attesting to the fact that she is a "conservative" and personally against cases like Roe. John Hinderaker of Powerline points out that this last bit of information will unify Democrat opposition to her.

Stay with me here... In the past, Democrats have focused on a nominee's unstated positions on specific issues rather than their judicial history. So now he presents a nominee without a judicial history. Dems then complain (as do Republicans) that it is important to know a nominee's judicial philosophy which can be determined by their past rulings. They also complain about Miers lack of judicial experience.

Stay with me...

Now the debate is refocused on judicial philosophy and experience, regardless of personal views. Miers is voted down in committee, Bush nominates another judge with a very clear judicial history as an originalist (a Luttig, an Owens, etc).

Now when Dems attack they contradict themselves because they just said they wanted someone with experience and an established history of rulings. They're forced to admit that they just don't like the rulings because they disagree with them, making it more difficult to argue against the nominee's qualifications.

Now the great debate begins, and Conservatives get to make the case for an "originalist" judicial philosophy with the Dems left going "humana, humana, humana..."

Hey, like I said...whacky.

Whatever. Move along, nothing to see here.

Posted by: Gary at 02:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.