A Conservative Reaction Roundup

Wow, the more I bounce around the right wing blogosphere the more vitriolic the reactions from conservatives to the nomination of Harriet Miers. Michelle Malkin's reaction:

What Julie Myers is to the Department of Homeland Security, Harriet Miers is to the Supreme Court. (Video of the announcement here via NYT).) It's not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It's that she's so transparently a crony/"diversity" pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste. If this is President Bush's bright idea to buck up his sagging popularity--among conservatives as well as the nation at large--one wonders whom he would have picked in rosier times. Shudder.

Our old friend Feddie from Southern Appeal:

Harriet Miers? Are you freakin' kidding me?!

Can someone--anyone--make the case for Justice Miers on the merits? Seriously, this is the best the president could do?

And what really sticks in my craw is the president's unwillingness to have a national debate about the proper method of interpreting the Constitution. I suppose I should have seen this coming when White House staffers freaked out over Chief Justice Roberts's ties to the Federalist Society.

Thanks for nothing, Mr. President. You had better pray that Justice Miers is a staunch judicial conservative, because if she turns out to be another O'Connor then the Republican Party is in for a world of hurt.

Un-freakin'-believable.

From Manuel Miranda, who has been carrying water for the President's judicial nominees for years:

"The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas, who had been the president's lawyer. The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisers that the White House gathered around it."

Mark Levin, author of a popular but ridiculous attack on "judicial activism":

Miers was chosen for two reasons and two reasons alone: 1. she's a she; 2. she's a long-time Bush friend. Otherwise, there's nothing to distinguish her from thousands of other lawyers. And holding a high post in the Bar, which the White House seems to be touting, is like holding a high position in any professional organization. But it reveals nothing about the nominee's judicial philosophy. There are many top officials in the Bar who I wouldn't trust to handle a fender-bender. Also, early in his term, the president singled out the Bar for its partisan agenda and excluded it from a formal role in judicial selection. The president said he would pick a candidate like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, and he did not. We all know of outstanding individuals who fit that bill, and they were once again passed over. Even David Souter had a more compelling resume that Miers.

Prof. Stephen Bainbridge:

This appointment reeks of cronyism, which along with prideful arrogance seems to be the besetting sin of the Bush presidency. At this point, I see no reason - none, nada, zilch - for conservatives who care about the courts to lift a finger to support this candidate....I got a lot of criticism for saying that George Bush was pissing away the conservative moment via his Iraq policies. Even then, however, I continued to support Bush precisely because I thought we'd get a couple of solid Scalia or Thomas-style conservatives on the Supreme Court. I was wrong. With this appointment, I'd echo Andrew's sentiment with something a tad more off color: Bush is now peeing on the movement.

Ouch. With friends like these, who needs liberal interest groups to oppose a nomination? I have a strong feeling that this was purely the President's choice, almost certainly against the advice of his advisers. Bush has a tendency to believe that his personal judgements of someone are sacrosanct and accurate to the point of infallibility. I can only imagine that there are a whole lot of people at the White House right now shaking their heads and trying not to say "I told you so" within earshot of the boss.