Who is she? Your guess is as good as mine. She's never been a judge at any level, and her greatest claims to fame have been the fact that she's Bush's lawyer and she was the former president of the Dallas bar association. But there is nothing on record that gives anyone a clue on how she will perform on the court, other than the mention that she's a born-again Christian, and turned Republican shortly afterwards.
That's all nice, if you're simply looking at her personality-wise. But do these things make her qualified to sit on the highest court in the nation, especially during these times? When a nominee is chosen, especially by a Republican president, conservatives should not have to guess as to what approach the nominee takes. It should be made clear as day, and they should be willing to defend that premise against any scrutiny.
Conservative principles are really simple, actually. The president only needs to ask three questions when considering a nominee:
1. Will the nominee uphold the principles and the spirit of the Constitution, not only in words but in theory?
2. Will the nominee promote freedom and individual liberty over government control?
3. Will the nominee uphold the limits of the federal government - and the federal courts - in accordance of constitutional law and history?
Not only is it the obligation of the president to make sure each and every nominee can answer those questions in the affirmative, but it's the obligation of the president to have enough information that proves this to be true. After all, America has been burned too many times by justices we thought were going to rule in this manner (Souter, Kennedy).
Thus, it's not enough for simply trust Bush. Placing Miers aside for a second, Bush really hasn't given us much to trust him on. Whether it's the massive amounts of federal spending, signing campaign finance reform (And no; fighting it after the fact doesn't amount to a hill of beans, especially since he failed. He shouldn't have signed the damned thing to begin with.), prescription drug bill, failure to reform the tax code, failure to privatize Social Security, playing soft against the terrorists in Iraq....I could go on and on and on. No; we can't trust you.
With the death of a chief justice and the retirement of an associate justice, Bush has been handed yet another opportunity that very few presidents have ever had; the chance to nominate two (and possibly three, as some are saying Souter may retire next) Supreme Court justices. This could decide whether the Supreme Court continues to be the statist monarchy that eliminates the freedoms of the American people one court case at a time, or it moves toward being an entity that limits its rulings within the scope of the Constitution. The Surpreme Court's future can and will decide the future of America, and it's too important to allow a nominee who has little qualifications and no track record.
Bush defenders are saying the qualifications question threatens future presidential nominations, as he should have the right to choose whoever he wishes. Good. Just because the president could nominate whoever he wishes doesn't mean he should. For example, let's say I'm an NBA coach, and I'm facing the Miami Heat. I could place my 5'11 backup point guard to man up on Shaq. Should I do it? Only if I have something against the kat, and am trying to get him killed. If I'm trying to win the game, however, I'm going to put the biggest and most capable guy on my squad to play defense on him.
And that's what conservatives want. Guessing games should be left to the kids; we want the biggest dog we can possibly get on the Court. We want a Janice Brown, or a Priscilla Owen, and if we can't get that, then we want to have someone with the ideals and philosophy of those two. Let the chips fall where they may. When another Kelo case comes up we don't need to wonder what side a stealth nominee will be on. Not only should we expect them to vote it down, but to provide a legal opinion so convincing that not even the most legally sound leftist could penetrate their arguments.
Thus, every conservative senator should vote Miers down. This is nothing against her personally, but the conservative bloc doesn't have the time - nor should they have the patience - to play guessing games with stealth nominees. Conservatives deserve better, and their senators should demand more. It's time Bush started taking conservative issues seriously instead of throwing bones to us as if we're dogs.