[Supreme Court]

The Dem Response

There's been a lot of speculation about why Bush nominated Harriet Miers, to which I say: who cares? It's done. The more important question is how the Dems will handle the nomination. Thinking seems to be dividing along two lines: 1) Bill Kristol hates Miers, so she must be great, and 2) she's a Bush crony, so how can she be any good?

But those positions are premature. For the moment, Dems only have to concern themselves with her qualifications--which on the surface are not good. The woman may be an exceptional lawyer, but her credentials do not demonstrate it:

The resume goes on -- a distinguished alumni award from the Southern Methodist University law school; co-winner of the 1993 Sarah T. Hughes Women Lawyers of Achievement Award from the Women and the Law Section of the State Bar of Texas; one of the 50 most influential women lawyers in America -- in a list of the kind of certificates that might decorate the office walls of hundreds of corporate lawyers across America.

For Dems, the issue is exposing her qualifications. Particularly given the closeness of this nominee to the President, they also need to demand relevant documents. Who knows if she's any good? That's what the process is designed to determine. No reason to make any early decisions. If she doesn't pass muster, she's easy to vote against--and also to blast the President for. They might even find that the Republicans agree.

[Update: Max and Ezra ignore my advice; back Miers.]