[Supreme Court]

183 Words on Harriet Miers

Matt Drudge claims to have obtained "hidden testimony" that in 1990 Harriet Miers said "she 'wouldn’t belong to the Federalist Society' – a conservative and libertarian lawyers’ organization – because it was 'politically charged.'" Now even James Dobson--the go-to guy for the "Harriet's great" soundbite--has doubts about her fitness for the court. Andrew Sullivan, upon consideration, gives Dems the "radical advice" to support her nomination. Should gunshy Dems take the advice and dodge a potential Janice Rogers Brown replacement nod?

Absolutely not, for two reasons.

1. What Harriet Miers said in 1990 isn't particularly relevant now that it's 2005. For a woman everyone acknowledges is not a big thinker, her steady shift to Bush and Bush-style conservatism (not to mention rabid Bush loyalty), is reason enough to believe her views have shifted substantially.

2. No one has made a credible argument that she's qualified. If Democrats care for the integrity of the Consitution and the rule of law, there's absolutely no excuse for supporting an incompetent. All the more so given that any guess about her politics is, after all, just a guess.